ACCESS TO JUSTICE TOWARDS THE CREATION OF INCLUSIVE SOCIAL ORDER Relatively speaking, there are two related counts on which we need to pay attention on priority for the fruition of access to justice for all. The first count: For avoiding proverbial long delays and clogging of the wheels of administration of justice, it is imperative to have a crystal-clear vision of constitutional values by all the three organs of the State: The Parliament, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. And this vision has to emerge, oddly enough, from the Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court, which is the constitutionally mandated prime responsibility of the apex court. In this respect, we need to remember, what Justice Shah stated in one of his conclusions now more than 20 years back in respect of interpretative role of the Supreme Court in the exploration of constitutional values: “It is established that Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed content, most of them are empty vessels into which each generation must pour its content in the light of its experience,” and that “[t]he attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the Fundamental Rights by process of judicial interpretation.”102 However, this critical role of the Supreme Court through its Constitution Benches has relatively remained on backburners until most recently,103 may be for the reasons of untold complexities and arduous task involved in the decision-making process! With a view to elucidate the complex constitutional phenomenon, necessitating for the Supreme Court to visit the Constitution time and again for deciphering its true values, we may cite our critique of the five-Judge Constitution Bench judgement in the Sabrimala Temple case 102 See, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0234/2003: (2003) 4 SCC 399, while striking down Section 33-Bof RPA Act, 1951 [inserted by the Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002]. For elaborate analysis, see the author’s article, “People’s Right to Know Antecedents of their Election Candidates: A Critique of Constitutional Strategies,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 47 No. 2 (2005) 135-157. Even the Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 132-134 in all matters — civil, criminal or other proceeding — would itself be substantially served with the clear vision of constitutional values. 103 See, The Tribune, August 28, 2022: Editorial — “Constitution Bench — SC focus back on critical aspect of interpreting laws.” — It commends the initiative of the newly appointed 49th Chief Justice of India (CJI), U.U. Lalit, who on the very first day of taking over as CJI listed several fivejudge Constitution Bench matters for hearing, and, thereby, “shifting the focus back on a critical aspect that has been overlooked in recent years.” To “lay down the law with clarity,” “the court would strive to have a Constitution Bench sitting throughout the year” with the singular aim at “avoiding the long delays”. According to the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a total of 492 cases are pending before the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court, see The Tribune, August 25, 2022. The decisions rendered by the Constitution Benches in those cases, it is surmised, would help in quick decision-making in most of the connected cases and, thereby, reducing the pendency of cases before the Supreme Court that has crossed over 71,000, from a little over 55,000 in 2017, despite the sanctioned strength being increased to 34 judges in 2019. 25