Justice
Hrishikesh Roy demitted office on February 1, 2025, after over five years of
distinguished service as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Renowned for
his wit, ever-smiling demeanor, and unwavering support for junior colleagues,
Justice Roy's legacy extends beyond his courtroom presence. His judgments and
character—both on and off the bench—deserve deeper exploration.
My journey
to Justice Roy's chamber began with a year of experience working under Justice
Muralidhar. In December 2022, I was invited for an interview for the position
of law clerk with Justice Roy. The interview was a blend of queries, covering
sports, literature, Constitution Bench hearings, and even my favorite Harry
Potter character—an insightful examination of my personality, which I was
fortunate enough to pass.
Soon after I
joined, I realized that clerking at Justice Roy's office came with unique
perks. Each month, interns and clerks were treated to complimentary tickets to
plays, where we had the opportunity to accompany him. Evenings were accompanied
by snacks, and those who arrived early in the morning were provided with
breakfast and coffee. However, the most enriching experience was the privilege
of accompanying him to court in the morning, engaging in discussions about the
cases listed for the day along the way.
Consensus-building
Justice
Roy's approach in Constitution bench matters, especially when he was not
authoring the majority opinion was to build a consensus for greater clarity in
the law. His opinion in NN Global v Indo Unique 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343, a
five-judge bench case on unstamped arbitration agreements, was not initially
intended to be a dissent. Justice KM Joseph's majority opinion makes multiple
references to Justice Roy's judgment, exemplifying the dialogue between the
judges. Similarly, in another five-judge arbitration case, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI
SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874,
Justice Roy penned a partial dissent within a short span when he found it
difficult to align with Chief Justice Chandrachud's view that constitutional
law must apply to arbitration, instead agreeing with Justice Narasimha. However,
he concurred with Justice Chandrachud on the principle that equality must apply
at all stages, including appointment—a point on which Justice Narasimha
differed. In other constitution benches, the goal was to send suggestions to
other judges and to assist in the clarity of the law. Justice Roy also authored
the opinion in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd.,2024
LiveLaw (SC )267, addressing a gap in arbitration jurisprudence concerning bias
at the enforcement stage. He held that the fundamental principles of morality
and justice under “public policy” will include bias and that international
standards must be applied in determining bias at the enforcement stage. In
another significant decision,in Independent Sugar Corporation v. Girish Sriram Juneja,
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126, Justice Roy authored the majority opinion clarifying the
interplay between competition law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),
resolving inconsistencies created by a series of NCLAT judgments. The Court
held that prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is
mandatory, not directory, before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) can approve
any resolution plan involving a merger or acquisition, as required by the
proviso to Section 31(4) of the IBC.
Unanimous
opinion in the Constitution Bench decision concerning LMVs
Justice Roy
also authored the unanimous decision in M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 859 in a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice DY
Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj
Misra. Adopting a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Motor
Vehicle Act, the Court also approached the issue from the perspective of
livelihood issues of transport vehicle drivers. While the arguments from the
side of insurance companies were forceful, the Court sided with the claimants
who were mostly represented pro bono. The judgment was explained by making
hypothetical references to 'Sri'- a transport vehicle driver in India and began
with a humourous observation by George Carlin. The Court also clarified the
principles of per incuriam in the context of statutory provisions- building
upon the principles articulated by Justice Krishna Iyer in Mamleshwar
Prasad v Kanhaiya Lal (1975) 2 SCC 232.
Diversity
During the
hearing in Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79—a
case concerning modifications to the guidelines issued in the 2018 judgment on
passive euthanasia—one of the suggestions was to establish a broad-based panel
of doctors. However, Justice Roy, drawing from his own experience as someone
from the North-East, highlighted the practical challenges, noting that only a
few hospitals in Gauhati had the requisite personnel to constitute such a
panel. Ultimately, the final order reduced the number of members on the board
to three.
In Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Patna,2024 LiveLaw (SC)
350, a case concerning the constitutional validity of an interview requirement
in judicial examinations, Justice Roy echoed Justice Chandrachud's views
in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129,
emphasizing that true "efficiency" lies in diversity and
representation rather than a narrow conception of merit. He observed:
“To borrow
the phrase from philosopher Michael Sandel's book, “The Tyranny of Merit”,
successful candidates often feel a sense of “meritocratic hubris”, overlooking
how factors such as socio-economic background, caste, gender, and other
structural inequalities can shape opportunities and outcomes.”
Justice Roy
also authored the opinion in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 636, granting relief to an SC candidate who had been denied
selection for nearly nine years due to a last-minute change in cut-off rules.
Gender
equality
In a PIL
concerning prison reforms in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v DG, Prisons and
Correctional Services WP(C) 406/2013, Justice Roy directed that
special efforts must be made to facilitate the release of women prisoners
citing Justice VR Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners, the report of the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs as well as the Amitava Roy
Committee report. In another recent decision in a case concerning
sexual assault- Justice Roy noted as under:
“Victims
respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock,
social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to
expect a uniform reaction. The stigma associated with sexual assault often
creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to
disclose the incident to others.”
Aligning
with what feminist legal scholar-Professor Pratiksha Baxi describes as therapeutic
jurisprudence in sexual assault cases, Justice Roy reiterated that
the "hue and cry" myth is flawed in assessing a survivor's response
to assault.
Following
his commitment to gender equality in his chamber, Justice Roy ensured a
supportive and inclusive work environment for his clerks. With four female law
clerks, he maintained an open-door policy, encouraging us to approach him
freely with doubts and discussions. Few people know about his initiative in
Gauhati—'Hint of a Smile'—a program designed for judicial officers to
make the legal system less intimidating and more accessible.
Personal
liberty
Justice Roy
authored the judgment in ED
v. Kapil Wadhawan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249 where the central issue
was the computation of the 60/90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which determines when an accused becomes
entitled to statutory bail. The Court held that the computation must include
the day of remand, reinforcing the principle that procedural clarity must
favour personal liberty.
In Vijay
Nair v. ED, a case concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)
and special statutes, Justice Roy in his order reaffirmed
that the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
cannot be abrogated even by special laws that impose a stringent twin test for
bail. He emphasized that such statutes cannot override the principle that bail
is the rule and jail, the exception.
In another
case where the convict was granted Bail three months earlier, Justice
Roy noted that the justice delivery system cannot be oblivious to the
plight of indigent convicts who are unable to provide local surety.
In the
chamber, he ensured that the orders were immediately uploaded,
since even a day's delay could mean unjust incarceration for someone awaiting
freedom.
Procedure
In a recent
opinion authored by Justice Roy in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of MP, 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
129, concerning the interplay between the natural justice principles of the
rule against bias and audi alteram partem, the Court held that “the
principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that
no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere
technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary
decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics.”
Similarly,
in a split opinion in Urban Improvement Trust v. Gordhan Dass, (2024) 3
SCC 250, Justice Roy underscored the importance of procedural rights as
under:
“There ought to be substantive limits on the power of eminent domain in order to avoid arbitrary action. Strict adherence to procedure is an essential safeguard towards achieving fairness and transparency in the land acquisition process. Such procedures provide land owners and interested persons a fair opportunity to say why their land should not be acquired and also whether the compensation assessed for their lands is adequate. To deny procedural safeguards to the land loser would mean that the doors of justice are shut for him. Such an interpretation, in my view, should be avoided.”In Chirag Bhanu Singh v. High Court of H.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664, Justice Roy authored the opinion directing the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium to reconsider the elevation of a District Judge. The Supreme Court intervened on the judicial side, holding that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot unilaterally reconsider a recommendation. The procedure adopted was found to be inconsistent with the law laid down in the Second and Third Judges Cases which propounded the Collegium system of appointments.
In a case
concerning the suo
motu reopening of the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Ministers in a
disproportionate assets case, Justice Roy, noting a departure from the usual
case assignment process, observed that the Madras High Court judge should have
ideally sought the Chief Justice's orders before proceeding.
Secularism
In a
significant order, Justice Roy stayed
directives in the Kanwar Yatra case that required
food stalls, shacks, and eateries along the pilgrimage route to display the
names of their owners and staff. The directive was challenged by the
Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Lok Sabha member Mahua Moitra,
academic Apoorvanand, and columnist Aakar Patel on the grounds that it violated
the principles of secularism and the fundamental rights to equality,
non-discrimination, and dignity, potentially leading to religious profiling.
During the hearing, Justice Roy, in his characteristic style, remarked
“ Would
Kanwariya also expect that food should be cooked by owner of particular
category? Also, grown by a particular community?”
In an
Article 32 petition, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Roy strongly criticized the practice of demolishing homes as a
punitive measure, holding that “alleged involvement in crime is no ground for
demolition of a property. Such actions may be seen as running a
bulldozer over the laws of the land”.
Press
freedom and Criminal defamation
Justice Roy
also delivered significant orders in defense of journalists, emphasizing
that “in democratic nations, the freedom to express one's views must be
respected. Merely because a journalist's writings are perceived as critical of
the government, criminal cases should not be foisted upon them.” This
order was later cited to secure
stay orders in similar cases.
The Supreme
Court also intervened to stay a series of criminal defamation cases, beginning
with the one against Shashi Tharoor over his remark likening the current prime
minister to a “scorpion on a Shivling,” which, Justice Roy noted, was
ultimately a metaphor. He also stayed criminal defamation cases against
Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi, reaffirming that
the threshold for restricting speech in political discourse is high.
Justice
Roy's approach to adjudication was marked by swift disposal of cases,
consensus-building, empathy, humour and an unwavering commitment to upholding
the values of the Indian Constitution. He often spoke of a play's backstage
crew—lighting technicians, cameramen—whose unseen efforts make everything work.
In much the same way, he saw himself as part of the team working behind the
scenes for the institution- a perspective that truly defines his legacy.
