JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 irrevocable understanding between the citizen and the State (amounting to social contract) at the very threshold of our constitution making.96 However, fructification of ‘fraternity’ (that is, inclusive social order) through ‘access to justice’ is indeed a very complex constitutional phenomenon. It requires continual adjustment and accommodation of competing conflicting interests on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights and their foundational values (Basic Structure Doctrine) enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.97 The responsibility of protecting as well as exploring hitherto unexplored constitutional values through the interpretative process has been exclusively entrusted to the Supreme Court. This role of the Supreme Court is proverbially described as, ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ [a guard on the alert]. The apex court is not only the accredited spokesperson of the Constitution,98 but also the supreme authority to resolve any ‘substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution’99 and virtually the transitory law-maker as it can “in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”100 The clear implication flowing from all the three attributes is: the Supreme Court plays perhaps the most crucial role in augmenting access to justice by investing the ‘rule of law’ with exploration of new constitutional values, especially through its Constitution Benches consisting of at least five or more judges.101 This indeed is the design that makes our Constitution robust and full of futuristic import. However, on a quick look at the constitutional journey of 75 years, we may decipher at least two counts on which we are found wanting and a course-correction is desiderated. That would strengthen and sustain the pace of access to justice in building up the inclusive society. 96 Social contract theory goes back to an imagined or hypothetical state of nature to create an equitable just social order in which there is an implied irrevocable social contract between the State (King) and the citizens (subjects), the former protecting the latter, including particularly the most vulnerable ones, as per the agreement sanctified through a sacred document (Constitution). See John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) based on the work of such philosophers as Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, using the social contract theory to say that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. 97 See, the author’s article, “Basic structure of the Indian Constitution: The doctrine of constitutionally controlled governance [From His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati (1973) to I.R. Coelho (2007)],” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 49 No. 3 (2007) 365-398. 98 Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that declaring “the law” is the prerogative of the Supreme Court, which “shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” 99 Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, for this purpose, the minimum number of Judges “shall be five.” 100 Under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, any such law made by the Supreme Court, however, “shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.” 101 See, supra, note 34. 24