Hrishikesh Roy

Justice Hrishikesh Roy was born on 1 February 1960 in Assam and finished his schooling at Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. 

He graduated with a law degree from Campus Law Centre in 1982. Justice Roy and three others from the 1982 batch would go on to become judges of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices S.K. Kaul and S.R. Bhat. 

Career as an Advocate

After graduating in 1982, Justice Roy enrolled in the bar and began practising in Delhi. He soon moved his practice to the Gauhati High Court in Assam. After practising law for over 20 years, he was designated as a Senior Advocate of the Gauhati High Court on 21 December 2004. 

During his career as an advocate, Justice Roy appeared as a Senior Government Advocate for the state of Arunachal Pradesh. He was also the Standing Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board. He also appeared for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, a district body that was formed for the development and protection of tribals living in the Karbi Anglong and West Karbi Anglong districts of Assam.

Career as a Judge

On 12 October 2006, Justice Roy was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court. In less than two years, on 15 July 2008, he was appointed as a Permanent Judge of the High Court. As the second most judge after the Chief Justice, Justice Roy was the Judge-in-charge, Administrative Department (JAD) during this time.

The Mediation Monitoring Committee headed by him produced the film Shako (Bridge). The film was used as a training tool for mediation. He also spearheaded training programmes for judicial officers under the Gauhati High Court. He also led the Arunachal Pradesh Legal Service Authority which produced a short film called Apne Ajnabi (Our Strangers) to highlight how legal help can be provided to victims of racial discrimination. 

Justice Roy also implemented the “Reach Out & Respond” programme as the  Executive Head of the Assam State Legal Services Authority. The programme aimed to facilitate access to justice for marginalised sections of Assam. He was in charge of the Assam Chapter of the Indian Law Institute (ILI) and a member of the National Judicial Academic Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India. The Gauhati High Court newsletter “ATMAN” was regularly published for 10 years under Justice Roy’s editorship.

On 29 May 2018, he was transferred from the Gauhati High Court to the Kerala High Court. A day later, on 30 May 2018, he was appointed the Acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court after former Chief Justice Antony Dominic retired. 

On 8 August 2018, he became the permanent Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. After serving as the Chief Justice for one year, he was elevated to the Supreme Court on 23 September 2019. Justices Krishna Murari, S.R. Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian were elevated alongside him. 

In its recommendation, the Collegium noted that though Justice Roy was 46th in the combined seniority list of High Court judges, his elevation would bring a representation of the Gauhati High Court on the Supreme Court bench. Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was the only judge from Assam at the time and was due to retire in three months. 

Currently, Justices Roy and Ujjal Bhuyan (who assumed office in July 2023) are the two sitting judges from Gauhati. Justice Roy will retire in January 2025 after four years at the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, Justice Roy has authored 70 judgements and has been a part of 314 benches so far.

Out of his judgements, Justice Roy has authored most of his judgements in Service (28%) matters. This is followed by Criminal (15%), Civil (7%) and Labour (6%) matters.

Notable Judgements

In Municipal Corporation of Bombay v Ankita Sinha (2021), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo moto powers under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Authoring the judgement, Justice Roy, wrote that the tribunal's mandate includes protecting the environment. This includes the power to identify and intervene in cases at its own initiative. The power, he wrote, cannot be restricted to comply with procedural requirements of a formal petition. The suo moto powers were found to be included within Section 14 of the Act which provides prerequisites for the National Green Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction. As the provision makes no mention of a requirement of an application, the tribunal can exercise suo moto powers. Justice Roy wrote that the statutory provisions of the NGT Act should be amplified in order to protect the right to life and the right to a healthy environment.   

Justice Roy was on a five-judge Constitution Bench which passed a series of judgements dealing with euthanasia, appointment of election commissioners, and animal welfare. In Common Cause v Union of India (2023), the five-judge bench modified the 2018 Euthanasia Guidelines to make the right to die with dignity more accessible. The judgement aimed to simplify the procedures in order to reduce the suffering of terminally ill patients who are unable to communicate their wishes. In Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023), the Constitution Bench recommended the creation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India to advise the President on appointments to the Election Commission of India until Parliament enacts a law on the subject. In Animal Welfare Board v Union of India (2023), the bench upheld the practice of Jallikattu, a bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. 

In Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Pvt. Ltd (2023), Justice Roy was a part of another five-judge Constitution Bench which held that companies outside of an arbitration agreement can be made parties to arbitration proceedings as per the Group of Companies doctrine.

Justice Roy was a part of the nine-judge Constitution Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India (2024) which held that the state governments are entitled to collect tax on mines and minerals under Entries 49 and 50 of the State List. The Constitution Bench also clarified that “royalty” under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 was not in the nature of tax.