Justice Hrishikesh Roy retired from the Supreme Court of India on 31st January 2024 after serving for more than five years. During his time in the Supreme Court, he wrote 45 judgments and was part of 324 benches. He was among the four judges appointed to the Supreme Court in 2019 along with Justices Krishna Murari, S.R. Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian.
NEW DELHI : Justice Hrishikesh Roy retired from the Supreme Court of India on 31st January 2024 after serving for more than five years. During his time in the Supreme Court, he wrote 45 judgments and was part of 324 benches. He was among the four judges appointed to the Supreme Court in 2019 along with Justices Krishna Murari, S.R. Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian.
His retirement marks the last among the four judges who were elevated that year. After his retirement, only three judges will remain in the Supreme Court who were appointed before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020—Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant.
Justice Roy was well-known for his wit, humor, and references to popular culture in the courtroom as well as in his judgments. Whenever he sat on larger benches, he would often be the last to speak before the bench rose. Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud once fondly called his humorous remarks “Roy-ism.”
On the occasion of his retirement, here are some of his most important judgments that reflect his unique judicial style—his “roy-ism.”
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v. Rambha Devi (2024)
In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v. Rambha Devi (2024), a five-judge bench ruled that a person with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license could drive a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kg. Justice Roy, who wrote the judgment, started with a quote from the famous comedian George Carlin:
“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”
Insurance companies argued that LMV license holders should not drive transport vehicles under 7500 kg because such vehicles require more experience. They also said that allowing this would create road safety risks. However, the five-judge bench disagreed. Justice Roy explained that
“According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an LMV is legally considered a transport vehicle. The special requirements mentioned in the Act only apply to medium and heavy transport vehicles that weigh more than 7500 kg.”
He also noted that insurance companies did not provide any proper data to prove that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles caused road safety problems.
NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame (2023)
Justice Roy also played a key role in promoting arbitration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India. His efforts toward minimizing the intervention of courts in arbitration cases were seen in several important judgments.
In 2023, he was part of the unanimous judgment that held that companies outside an arbitration agreement could still be part of arbitration proceedings under the Group of Companies Doctrine. Many of his decisions in Constitution Bench cases supported the principle of party autonomy in arbitration.
His strong belief in party autonomy was also visible in his dissenting opinion in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame (2023). The majority in a five-judge bench had ruled that:
“An unstamped arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable.”
But Justice Roy, writing for himself and Justice Ajay Rastogi, disagreed.
He wrote that courts should not interfere in arbitration matters unless absolutely necessary. He also explained that whether an arbitration agreement was stamped or not was a minor issue that could be corrected later. He wrote that an
“unstamped agreement was only “inadmissible in evidence” but not void.”
Later, in December 2023, a seven-judge bench overturned the earlier ruling and agreed with Justice Roy’s opinion that an unstamped arbitration agreement was a “curable defect” and that arbitral tribunals, not courts, should decide on its validity.
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) (2024)
In another significant case in November 2024, Justice Roy gave a dissenting opinion regarding the unilateral appointment of arbitrators. In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), a five-judge bench ruled in a 3:2 majority that such appointments were invalid. The majority, led by CJI Chandrachud, held that unilateral appointments in public-private contracts violated the principle of equality under Article 14.
Justice Roy, along with Justice P.S. Narasimha, dissented. They agreed that fairness and equality were important in arbitration. However, they cautioned that applying constitutional principles like Article 14 to arbitration, which is a private law process, could lead to unnecessary complications.
Justice Roy wrote that :
” Arbitration Act already had enough safeguards to ensure that arbitration proceedings were “impartial and independent.”
He emphasized that the Act allowed unilateral appointments and provided checks and balances to prevent any unfair advantage.
His commitment to minimal judicial intervention in arbitration cases was also seen in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (2024). A bench of Justices Roy and P.K. Mishra dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award given by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. They ruled that Indian courts should follow a hands-off approach and interfere with foreign arbitration awards only in rare cases.
“The forum must not be procedurally shackled.”
ALSO READ: Justice Hrishikesh Roy Exposes Govt’s Legal Targeting of Opposition & Judiciary’s Role
Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Ankita Sinha (2021)
Justice Roy also contributed significantly to environmental law. In Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Ankita Sinha (2021), he wrote a landmark judgment supporting the suo moto powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The case involved multiple appeals, including one concerning a gas leak in Visakhapatnam. The appellants argued that the NGT did not have the legal power to take up cases on its own.
Justice Roy disagreed. He wrote that the
NGT “must not be a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door.”
He ruled that the tribunal must be able to take action even if no one formally approaches it, as waiting would only delay justice. He added that the tribunal should not be “procedurally shackled” by unnecessary legal technicalities.
He explained that the NGT should not wait indefinitely for cases to be filed and must take proactive steps when environmental concerns arise.
Justice Roy was part of several Constitution Benches that decided major legal issues.
He was involved in cases that simplified euthanasia guidelines, recommended the formation of a committee for appointing election commissioners, and upheld the traditional practice of Jallikattu. He was also part of a nine-judge bench that ruled that state governments had the authority to tax mines and minerals and regulate industrial alcohol.
Additionally, he was in the majority in another nine-judge bench decision, which held that not all private property qualifies as a “material resource of the community.”
Justice Hrishikesh Roy’s tenure in the Supreme Court was marked by his unique judicial style, wit, and deep understanding of law. His emphasis on party autonomy in arbitration, limited court intervention, and proactive environmental protection made a significant impact on Indian jurisprudence.
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE