Justice Hrishikesh Roy will retire from the Supreme Court of India on January 31, 2025, concluding over five impactful years of service. He authored 45 judgments, emphasized minimal judicial interference in arbitration, and addressed pressing environmental issues. His unique courtroom style, characterized by humor and insightful remarks, leaves a lasting legacy on Indian jurisprudence.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy will retire from the Supreme Court of India on January 31, 2025, after an impactful tenure of over five years. Known for his sharp wit, humor, and unique courtroom style, Justice Roy was often the last voice in larger benches, offering insightful remarks that former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud fondly referred to as “Roy-ism.”
During his tenure, Justice Roy authored 45 judgments and was part of 324 benches. He was among the four judges elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019, alongside Justices Krishna Murari, S.R. Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian. With his retirement, only three judges remain in the top court who were elevated before the COVID-19 pandemic—Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Landmark Judgments and Notable “Roy-isms”
“Anyone Going Faster is a Maniac” – A Road Safety Ruling
In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v Rambha Devi (2024), a five-judge bench ruled that light motor vehicle (LMV) license holders could drive transport vehicles under 7500 kgs, dismissing insurance companies’ arguments about road safety concerns. Justice Roy, authoring the unanimous judgment, opened with a quote by 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?”
He highlighted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly defines LMVs as transport vehicles, and insurance companies failed to provide any data proving that LMV license holders posed safety risks.
Pushing the Judiciary Towards Minimal Intervention in Arbitration
Justice Roy was a strong advocate for reducing judicial interference in arbitration matters. His dedication to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms was evident from his time at the Gauhati High Court, where he headed the Mediation Monitoring Committee.
In NN Global Mercantile v Indo Unique Flame (2023), a five-judge bench ruled by a 3:2 majority that unstamped arbitration agreements were void. Justice Roy dissented, arguing that such agreements should be treated as “curable defects” rather than being declared void outright.
His views were later validated when a seven-judge bench overturned the decision in December 2023, ruling that unstamped agreements remain valid and their enforceability should be determined by arbitration tribunals rather than courts.
Defending Party Autonomy in Arbitration
In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) (2024), a five-judge bench ruled 3:2 against unilateral appointments of arbitrators in public-private contracts, citing violations of Article 14 (equality before law).
Justice Roy dissented, arguing that the Arbitration Act already ensures impartiality, and courts should not impose constitutional law principles on private arbitration cases. He strongly defended party autonomy, emphasizing that unilateral appointments were legally valid under the Arbitration Act.
Supporting International Arbitration Norms
Justice Roy reinforced his “hands-off” approach to judicial intervention in arbitration in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (2024). He ruled that Indian courts should respect international arbitration awards and only intervene in “exceptional circumstances.”
Green Justice: “Waiting for Godot” Should Not Apply to Environmental Cases
Justice Roy authored the majority judgment in Municipal Corporation of Bombay v Ankita Sinha (2021), where the Supreme Court upheld the suo motu powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Rejecting arguments that the NGT lacked legislative authority to take cases on its own, Justice Roy stated:
“The NGT cannot be a mute spectator when no one knocks on its door.”
He quoted Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot”, comparing environmental inaction to endless waiting for a resolution that may never come. His ruling emphasized that urgent environmental concerns should not be delayed by “procedural nitpicking.”
Other Key Contributions
Justice Roy played a crucial role in several Constitution Bench cases, including:
- Euthanasia guidelines – Simplified legal procedures.
- Election Commission appointments – Recommended a committee for fair selection.
- Jallikattu case – Upheld the traditional practice.
- Taxing mineral resources – Affirmed state governments’ taxation rights.
- Private property rights – Ruled that not all private property should be considered a “material resource of the community.”
A Legacy of Judicial Wit and Reforms
Justice Hrishikesh Roy’s retirement marks the end of an era of humor, sharp legal reasoning, and progressive judgments in arbitration and environmental law. His “Roy-isms”—whether in court debates or judgments—have left a lasting impact on Indian jurisprudence.
As he steps down from the Supreme Court, his influence on party autonomy in arbitration, environmental protection, and legal interpretations with a touch of humor will be remembered for years to come.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
