JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 In sum, the refinement of the value of justice in the pursuit of access to justice reaches its pinnacle in the evolution of the concept of inherent power of ‘judicial review’ of the Supreme Court. This is so even where either no provision of appeal is provided or is specifically barred by a statute.48 We may decipher this principle in judicial attempt to construe access to justice as a fundamental right under the Constitution.49 (D) Access to justice via judicial remedy vis-à-vis inordinate delays in justice delivery system However, there is one, perhaps the most, disturbing dimension of access to justice via judicial remedy, which is caused by the inordinate delays in our justice delivery system. We cannot do better to put across the grievous injury that delay causes to the whole notion of access to justice through courts than what is stated summarily by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, while reflecting upon the state of ‘present judicial set up’ in India: “Delay and backlogs in the administration of justice is of paramount concern for any country governed by the Rule of law. In our present judicial setup, disputes often take many decades to attain finality, travelling across a series of lower courts to the High Court and ending with an inevitable approach to the Supreme Court.”50 [Emphasis our] “Such crawling pace of the justice delivery system only aggravates the misery of affected parties. Although with nebulous origins, the adage ‘justice delayed, is justice denied’ is apt in this context. Courts in this country, probably in a quest to ensure complete justice for everyone, overlook the importance of expediency and finality. This situation has only worsened over the years, as evidenced through piling pendency across all Courts. It would, however, be wrong to place the blame of such delay squarely on the judiciary, for an empirical examination of pendency clearly demonstrates that the ratio of judges 48 49 50 12 See, Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., per K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., MANU/SC/0664/2022: AIR 2022 SC 2713 (para 12), cited in L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI, MANU/SC/0261/1997:1997 (3) SCC 261: “it has been categorically declared that the power of judicial review Under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable.” See, the 5-Judge bench judgment in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/1563/2019: (2020) 6 SCC 1, per Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I., N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., para 378 (per Deepak Gupta J.), citing Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, MANU/SC/0797/2016: (2016) 8 SCC 509. Hereinafter Rojer Mathew. Rojer Mathew, para 10.