1. Introduction

Judicial review of preventable failures refers to the power of constitutional courts to examine whether a government authority, public institution, regulatory body, or other legally responsible institution has failed to prevent harm that could reasonably have been avoided.

A preventable failure occurs when an authority:

Fails to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.

Ignores warnings about an impending danger.

Fails to enforce statutory duties and safety regulations.

Neglects its responsibility to protect life, liberty, health, or property.

Fails to investigate or respond to known violations.

Does not implement policies or safeguards that it is legally required to implement.

Judicial review ensures that public authorities do not escape legal responsibility merely because their failure resulted from inaction rather than an affirmative decision.

Central principle: Where the law imposes a duty to act, unreasonable failure to perform that duty may become a ground for judicial intervention.

In India, this subject is particularly connected with Articles 14, 21, 32 and 226 of the Constitution, administrative law, public accountability, environmental protection, and constitutional remedies.

2. Meaning and nature of preventable failures

Preventable failures are institutional or administrative omissions that cause, contribute to, or expose individuals to avoidable harm.

They may arise from several circumstances:

A. Administrative failure

An administrative authority fails to perform its legal responsibilities.

Examples:

Failure to maintain public infrastructure.

Failure to provide essential public services.

Failure to enforce safety requirements.

Failure to act on complaints concerning dangerous conditions.

B. Regulatory failure

A regulatory institution fails to supervise activities within its jurisdiction.

Examples:

Failure to inspect industrial establishments.

Failure to enforce environmental standards.

Failure to monitor hazardous substances.

Failure to take action against repeated regulatory violations.

C. Institutional failure

An institution has appropriate rules and procedures but fails to implement them.

Examples:

Failure to establish effective safety mechanisms.

Failure to respond to internal complaints.

Failure to conduct mandatory inspections.

Failure to investigate serious incidents.

D. Preventive and precautionary failure

An authority knows, or ought reasonably to know, that a particular activity creates a serious risk but does not take appropriate preventive measures.

E. Constitutional failure

A public authority's omission results in a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Not every unfortunate outcome constitutes a preventable failure in law. Courts generally examine the existence of a legal duty, foreseeability, unreasonable conduct or omission, causation, and the applicable legal remedy.

3. Constitutional foundation in India

Article 14 – Equality before law

Article 14 protects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable state action.

An authority may violate Article 14 where it:

Selectively enforces safety regulations.

Arbitrarily ignores complaints.

Fails to apply established standards consistently.

Acts without rational justification.

Exercises statutory discretion in an unreasonable manner.

The principle of non-arbitrariness applies to administrative decisions as well as certain failures to act.

Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty

Article 21 is particularly important because the right to life has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court.

It encompasses dimensions such as:

Human dignity.

Health and medical assistance.

A clean and healthy environment.

Protection against serious threats to life.

Conditions necessary for a dignified existence.

Where the State fails to discharge a constitutional or statutory responsibility and that failure violates Article 21, judicial intervention may be justified.

Article 32 – Constitutional remedies

Article 32 empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Possible remedies include:

Writ of mandamus.

Appropriate directions.

Compensation in established cases of constitutional violations.

Orders requiring public authorities to discharge their legal duties.

Article 226 – High Court jurisdiction

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.

It is particularly significant in preventable-failure cases because it allows judicial scrutiny of administrative inaction, statutory non-compliance, and failure to perform public duties.

4. Important principles governing judicial review

Courts generally apply the following principles when examining preventable failures.

4.1 Principle of legality

Every public authority must act within the powers granted by the Constitution and applicable legislation.

If an authority fails to perform a mandatory legal obligation, the court may examine that omission.

For example, if legislation requires an authority to inspect a hazardous industrial facility, its repeated failure to conduct inspections may be challenged.

4.2 Principle of reasonableness

Administrative decisions and omissions must satisfy standards of rationality and fairness.

A public authority cannot ignore a serious and foreseeable danger without a reasonable explanation.

4.3 Principle of proportionality

Preventive action should be proportionate to the seriousness of the risk.

Where a potential failure threatens human life, a higher level of precaution may be justified.

4.4 Principle of natural justice

Preventable failures may also arise when an institution ignores complaints, denies affected persons a fair hearing, or makes decisions without considering relevant evidence.

Depending on the circumstances, judicial review may require:

Fair consideration of complaints.

Disclosure of relevant reasons.

Impartial investigation.

An opportunity to be heard.

A reasoned administrative decision.

4.5 Doctrine of legitimate expectation

Where an authority has established a consistent policy or made a clear representation, affected persons may have a legitimate expectation that it will act fairly and consistently.

An arbitrary departure from that policy may be judicially reviewed.

However, legitimate expectation does not automatically create an enforceable right to a particular outcome.

4.6 Public trust doctrine

Public authorities are trustees of essential public resources, including forests, water bodies, and environmental assets.

Failure to protect these resources may attract judicial intervention, especially when it threatens public health and ecological balance.

4.7 Continuing mandamus

Where a problem cannot be resolved through a single judicial order, courts may retain jurisdiction and issue successive directions to ensure compliance.

This is particularly useful in cases involving:

Environmental degradation.

Police and investigative reforms.

Public health failures.

Infrastructure safety.

Institutional corruption.

Systemic administrative negligence.

5. Landmark Indian case laws

The following judgments establish important principles relevant to judicial review of preventable failures.

Case 1: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

Constitutional compensation

Facts:

The petitioner's son was taken into police custody. His dead body was subsequently found on a railway track with multiple injuries.

The petitioner alleged that her son had died because of custodial violence.

Issue:

Whether the State could be held constitutionally responsible for the violation of the right to life under Article 21.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognised the power of constitutional courts to award monetary compensation for established violations of fundamental rights.

The Court distinguished public-law compensation from ordinary private-law damages.

Legal principles:

The State may be held accountable for violations of fundamental rights committed by its officials.

Compensation can be awarded under Articles 32 and 226.

Sovereign immunity cannot defeat a constitutional remedy for an established violation of Article 21.

Public-law compensation does not prevent separate civil or criminal proceedings.

Relevance to preventable failures:

This judgment demonstrates that institutional failures involving the protection of life and personal liberty may attract constitutional accountability.

Case 2: Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37

Right to emergency medical care

Facts:

Hakim Sheikh suffered serious injuries after falling from a train. He was taken to several government hospitals, but he was repeatedly denied admission or treatment because of inadequate facilities or the absence of available beds.

He ultimately received treatment at a private hospital.

Issue:

Whether the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical assistance violated Article 21.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that failure to provide timely medical treatment to a person requiring emergency assistance violated the constitutional right to life.

The Court directed the State to improve emergency medical facilities, hospital infrastructure, ambulance arrangements, and coordination between hospitals. It also awarded compensation.

Legal principles:

Preservation of human life is a primary obligation of the State.

Government hospitals must provide timely emergency assistance.

Financial constraints do not automatically excuse failure to discharge constitutional obligations.

Courts can award compensation and issue systemic remedial directions.

Relevance:

This is one of the strongest authorities for judicial review of preventable institutional failures. It demonstrates that a failure to establish and maintain adequate public systems can become a constitutional issue.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 3: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395

Facts:

The case arose from the escape of oleum gas from the Shriram industrial complex in Delhi, which created serious risks to workers and members of the public.

Issue:

What legal responsibility should be imposed upon enterprises conducting hazardous or inherently dangerous activities?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court developed the doctrine of absolute liability for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.

Such enterprises have an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure that their activities do not cause harm.

Legal principles:

Hazardous industries must maintain the highest standards of safety.

An enterprise cannot escape liability merely by showing that it exercised reasonable care.

Compensation must reflect the nature and magnitude of the harm.

Industrial development must not disregard public safety.

Relevance:

The judgment establishes a powerful preventive approach to institutional and industrial failures.

It is particularly important where an organisation knows that its activities create potentially catastrophic risks.

A distinction is necessary: the doctrine of absolute liability directly concerns the liability of hazardous enterprises, not an automatic finding of constitutional liability against every regulator that fails to prevent an accident.

ELAW: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide+1

Case 4: Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226

Facts:

The case concerned allegations of corruption involving influential individuals and deficiencies in the functioning of investigative agencies.

The proceedings exposed concerns about institutional inaction and the failure to conduct effective investigations.

Issue:

Whether the Supreme Court could issue directions to ensure that investigative agencies performed their duties independently and effectively.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court issued directions intended to strengthen institutional independence and accountability.

It emphasised that the rule of law requires all persons, regardless of position, to be subject to the law.

Legal principles:

Investigative agencies must discharge their legal responsibilities effectively.

Political or external interference must not obstruct investigations.

Institutional independence is necessary for accountability.

Courts may issue continuing directions to remedy systemic administrative failures.

Relevance:

This case is important where preventable failures arise from deliberate administrative inaction, corruption, or institutional unwillingness to investigate wrongdoing.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 5: Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178

Facts:

The case concerned allegations of custodial torture and the availability of compensation for violations of fundamental rights.

Issue:

When can constitutional courts award compensation for custodial violations?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court explained that compensation under Articles 32 and 226 is appropriate where the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible and is sufficiently serious to shock the conscience of the court.

Legal principles:

Not every allegation of misconduct justifies public-law compensation.

The violation must be established through appropriate evidence.

Constitutional compensation is particularly relevant to grave violations.

Other legal remedies may remain available.

Relevance:

The case establishes an important limitation: judicial review of preventable failures must be based on legally established violations, not merely allegations of administrative negligence.

API SCI

Case 6: Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286

Facts:

An injured person involved in a road accident was reportedly refused immediate medical treatment at a hospital because the hospital was not authorised to handle medico-legal cases.

Issue:

Whether procedural formalities could justify delaying emergency medical treatment.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that preservation of human life must receive the highest priority. Doctors and hospitals have an obligation to provide immediate medical aid to preserve life.

Legal principles:

Human life takes priority over procedural formalities.

Medical assistance must not be delayed because of police or legal formalities.

Medical professionals have an important obligation to protect life.

Relevance:

The case establishes that avoidable institutional delays in emergencies can have serious constitutional implications.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 7: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

Facts:

The Supreme Court considered allegations of custodial deaths and torture and the absence of adequate safeguards against police abuse.

Issue:

Whether preventive procedural safeguards could be prescribed to protect individuals against custodial violence.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court established mandatory safeguards governing arrest and detention.

These included:

Identification of arresting police personnel.

Preparation of an arrest memorandum.

Notification of relatives or friends.

Recording of relevant custody information.

Medical examination of the arrested person.

Maintenance of appropriate police records.

Legal principles:

The Court emphasised transparency, accountability, and protection of human dignity.

Relevance:

This judgment is a direct example of preventive judicial intervention. Instead of merely addressing individual incidents of custodial abuse, the Court established institutional safeguards to reduce the possibility of future violations.

Indian Kanoon+2

Case 8: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

Facts:

Industries, particularly tanneries in Tamil Nadu, discharged untreated effluents into agricultural land and waterways, causing serious environmental pollution.

The authorities had been aware of the problem for years.

Issue:

Whether the State could be required to prevent environmental degradation and make polluting industries accountable.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognised the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle as essential features of sustainable development and part of Indian environmental law.

Legal principles:

Environmental authorities must anticipate and prevent environmental degradation.

Lack of complete scientific certainty cannot justify postponing preventive action against serious environmental threats.

Polluters must bear the costs of environmental damage.

Environmental restoration is an important part of legal accountability.

Relevance:

This is a landmark authority for judicial review of regulatory failures. It establishes that environmental authorities must take preventive action rather than wait until irreversible damage occurs.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 9: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212

Facts:

Chemical industries in Rajasthan caused serious environmental pollution through the discharge of hazardous industrial waste.

The pollution affected agricultural land and groundwater.

Issue:

Whether industries responsible for environmental degradation could be directed to pay the costs of restoring the damaged environment.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court applied the polluter-pays principle and required the polluting industries to bear the costs of remedial measures.

Legal principles:

Environmental damage cannot be ignored.

Polluters must bear the financial consequences of their activities.

Restoration of damaged ecology is an essential component of environmental justice.

Relevance:

The case demonstrates that preventable environmental harm can result in substantial financial and remedial obligations.

Case 10: Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657

Facts and issue:

The Supreme Court considered the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when a private body performs functions that may have a public character.

Judgment:

The Court explained that mandamus is principally a public-law remedy used to enforce public duties and control wrongful administrative action or refusal to perform duties.

A private body may also be subject to writ jurisdiction where it performs a public function and the relevant dispute has a public-law element.

Legal principles:

A public duty may be enforced through mandamus.

The nature of the duty is more important than simply identifying the institution.

Refusal to perform a public duty can justify judicial intervention.

Purely private disputes ordinarily do not become writ matters merely because one party alleges unfairness.

Relevance:

This case helps determine when an institutional failure is appropriate for judicial review under Article 226.

SCI Web API

6. Grounds on which courts may review preventable failures

Judicial review does not mean that courts automatically replace the judgment of administrative authorities. Intervention must be based on recognised legal grounds.

7. Legal test for determining a preventable failure

A court can examine the following questions when determining whether an institutional failure warrants intervention.

Step 1: Existence of a legal duty

Did the authority have a constitutional, statutory, contractual, or other enforceable public duty?

Step 2: Knowledge of the risk

Did the authority know, or should it reasonably have known, about the danger?

Step 3: Foreseeability

Was the resulting harm reasonably foreseeable?

Step 4: Failure to act

Did the authority fail to take legally required or reasonable preventive measures?

Step 5: Causation

Did the failure cause or materially contribute to the injury or violation?

Step 6: Legal injury

Was a fundamental right, statutory right, or other legally protected interest infringed?

Step 7: Appropriate remedy

What remedy is legally justified: mandamus, compensation, an investigation, preventive directions, or another form of relief?

These are analytical questions rather than a single rigid statutory test. The exact requirements differ between constitutional proceedings, statutory judicial review, negligence claims, and environmental litigation.

8. Judicial review of different categories of preventable failures

A. Preventable failures in public healthcare

Courts can examine:

Failure to provide emergency medical treatment.

Inadequate public healthcare infrastructure.

Failure to maintain essential medical facilities.

Unreasonable delays in emergency assistance.

Failure to implement legally required medical safeguards.

Important judgments:

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996).

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989).

B. Preventable failures in environmental protection

Courts can examine:

Failure to control industrial pollution.

Failure to monitor hazardous industries.

Failure to enforce environmental clearances.

Failure to protect groundwater and forests.

Failure to prevent irreversible ecological damage.

Important judgments:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987).

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996).

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996).

C. Preventable failures in policing

Courts can examine:

Failure to prevent custodial violence.

Failure to follow arrest procedures.

Failure to investigate serious complaints.

Failure to protect individuals from unlawful detention.

Failure to maintain transparency and accountability.

Important judgments:

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997).

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993).

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998).

D. Preventable failures in public administration

Courts can examine:

Failure to perform statutory responsibilities.

Arbitrary refusal to consider applications.

Unreasonable administrative delays.

Failure to implement legally binding policies.

Failure to exercise statutory powers where required.

Important judgments:

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998).

Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan (2005).

9. Remedies available against preventable failures

Indian constitutional courts have several remedies available depending upon the nature and seriousness of the failure.

9.1 Writ of mandamus

Mandamus is one of the most important remedies.

It directs a public authority to perform a legal or public duty that it has failed or refused to perform.

Examples:

Directing a municipal authority to remove a dangerous structure.

Directing a government hospital to comply with emergency medical obligations.

Directing a regulatory authority to consider complaints and exercise its statutory powers.

Directing an investigative agency to discharge its lawful responsibilities.

A court can also issue a limited mandamus requiring an authority to exercise its discretion within a reasonable time and according to lawful principles. It ordinarily cannot dictate the outcome of a genuinely discretionary decision.

9.2 Writ of certiorari

Certiorari may be used to quash an unlawful administrative or quasi-judicial decision.

For example, a court may quash an order that unlawfully excuses an institution from mandatory safety requirements.

9.3 Writ of prohibition

Prohibition prevents a subordinate court or tribunal from continuing proceedings beyond its jurisdiction.

It may be relevant where an institution attempts to exercise powers that the law does not confer upon it.

9.4 Compensation

Where a public authority's conduct results in an established violation of fundamental rights, constitutional courts may award monetary compensation.

Important cases:

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993).

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996).

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997).

Constitutional compensation is not automatic for every administrative omission. The violation must satisfy the applicable public-law standards.

9.5 Continuing mandamus

Courts may retain jurisdiction to monitor compliance with their directions.

For example, courts may require:

Periodic compliance reports.

Independent inspections.

Submission of investigation reports.

Implementation of institutional reforms.

Compliance with environmental standards.

9.6 Preventive and structural directions

Courts can issue directions intended to prevent future violations.

These may include:

Establishment of monitoring committees.

Mandatory safety inspections.

Development of emergency response systems.

Implementation of accountability procedures.

Periodic review of institutional performance.

10. Limitations on judicial review

Judicial review is a constitutional safeguard, but it is not unlimited.

A. Separation of powers

Courts must respect the constitutional division of responsibilities between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

They can enforce legal duties but should not ordinarily assume the executive's administrative functions.

B. Absence of enforceable legal duty

A person cannot ordinarily obtain mandamus merely because they believe an authority should take a particular action.

There must be an enforceable public or legal duty.

C. Questions of policy

Courts generally avoid substituting their opinions for legitimate policy choices made by competent authorities.

However, policy decisions remain reviewable where they violate constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, or recognised administrative-law principles.

D. Absence of sufficient evidence

Allegations of negligence or institutional misconduct must be supported by appropriate evidence.

A court will not necessarily presume wrongdoing simply because an undesirable outcome occurred.

E. Causation

A claimant must establish the necessary connection between the alleged failure and the legal injury for the particular remedy sought.

An institution may have performed its duties inadequately without necessarily being legally responsible for every subsequent injury.

F. Availability of alternative remedies

In appropriate cases, courts may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction where an effective alternative statutory remedy exists.

However, the alternative-remedy rule is not absolute, particularly where fundamental rights are involved, natural justice has been violated, or the authority has acted without jurisdiction.

11. Difference between preventable failure, negligence and judicial review

These concepts are related but legally distinct.

Important distinction: Every negligence case is not necessarily a judicial-review case, and every preventable failure is not automatically a constitutional violation.

For example, a private hospital's medical negligence claim ordinarily belongs to civil, consumer, or other appropriate legal proceedings. It does not automatically become a constitutional writ case.

However, a government hospital's failure to provide emergency treatment may raise an Article 21 issue, as demonstrated in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity.

12. Practical procedure for challenging preventable failures in India

An affected person may consider the following legal approach.

Collect documentary evidence

Preserve complaints, official correspondence, inspection reports, medical records, photographs, government orders, and other relevant documents.

Identify the responsible authority

Determine which government department, statutory body, regulatory institution, or public authority had the relevant responsibility.

Establish the legal duty

Identify the constitutional provision, statute, regulation, government order, or binding judicial direction imposing the obligation.

Submit a formal representation

Where appropriate, request the authority to perform its legal duty and preserve proof of submission.

Approach the appropriate court

File a petition under Article 226 before the relevant High Court or Article 32 before the Supreme Court when enforcement of fundamental rights is involved.

Seek appropriate relief

Depending on the facts, seek mandamus, compensation, an independent investigation, preventive directions, or structural reforms.

Monitor compliance

Where necessary, request compliance affidavits, progress reports, or continuing judicial supervision.

13. Significance of judicial review of preventable failures

Judicial review performs several important constitutional functions.

1. Protection of fundamental rights: It ensures that preventable institutional failures do not undermine the right to life, equality, dignity, and liberty.

2. Administrative accountability: It prevents public officials from treating statutory obligations as optional responsibilities.

3. Institutional improvement: Judicial directions can encourage improvements in safety systems, healthcare, environmental regulation, and public administration.

4. Prevention of recurring harm: Courts can address the underlying causes of institutional failures rather than merely compensating individual victims.

5. Strengthening the rule of law: Government institutions remain accountable to constitutional and statutory standards.

6. Protection of vulnerable populations: Judicial intervention can be particularly important where individuals cannot independently secure essential public services or challenge institutional misconduct.

14. Critical analysis

Judicial review of preventable failures represents an important development in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Traditionally, administrative law focused substantially on examining decisions made by public authorities. Modern constitutional jurisprudence also recognises that failure to act can be equally significant.

The decisions in Nilabati Behera, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, D.K. Basu, Vineet Narain, and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum demonstrate different dimensions of this development.

Three important developments emerge:

From reaction to prevention: Courts increasingly recognise the importance of preventive safeguards rather than waiting for serious harm to occur.

From individual responsibility to institutional responsibility: Courts may address systemic weaknesses rather than limiting relief to individual officials.

From declarations to implementation: Continuing mandamus and compliance monitoring can help translate judicial decisions into practical institutional improvements.

Nevertheless, excessive judicial intervention may create difficulties. Courts may lack technical expertise, financial information, and the administrative capacity necessary to manage complex institutions.

The appropriate judicial role is therefore to enforce constitutional and statutory obligations, require lawful decision-making, and prevent arbitrary inaction without unnecessarily taking over the executive's functions.

15. Important cases at a glance

16. Conclusion

Judicial review of preventable failures is an essential mechanism for ensuring constitutional accountability, administrative responsibility, and protection of fundamental rights.

The Indian Constitution does not merely protect individuals against unlawful actions of the State; it also requires public authorities to discharge certain positive obligations imposed upon them by law.

When an authority fails to perform an enforceable duty, ignores foreseeable dangers, disregards statutory safeguards, or permits avoidable violations of fundamental rights, courts may intervene through constitutional remedies.

The judgments in Nilabati Behera, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, D.K. Basu, Vineet Narain, and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum illustrate the importance of judicial intervention in preventing institutional misconduct and correcting administrative failures.

Ultimately, the purpose of judicial review is not merely to identify failures after damage has occurred, but also to ensure that public institutions discharge their legal responsibilities so that preventable harm does not recur.

17. Suggested examination questions

Explain the meaning and constitutional foundations of judicial review of preventable failures.

Discuss the role of Article 21 in preventing institutional and administrative failures.

Examine the importance of mandamus in cases involving administrative inaction.

Discuss the contribution of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity to the right to emergency medical treatment.

Explain how Vineet Narain strengthened institutional accountability.

Discuss the precautionary principle in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum.

Examine the scope and limitations of judicial review in cases involving preventable harm.

Distinguish between administrative negligence, constitutional violations, and judicial review.

Overall legal proposition: Judicial review provides a constitutional mechanism through which courts can compel public authorities to fulfil enforceable legal duties, remedy established violations of fundamental rights, and introduce appropriate safeguards against recurring institutional failures.