Acknowledging that the judiciary is “not equipped” to deal with instances of alleged judicial misbehaviour, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, judge of the Supreme Court, said that all the options before the top court including transferring a judge or initiating an in-house inquiry are “soft options and not very effective.” “I am not sure (what the institutional response must be). I think all our options are soft options and not very effective. We are not equipped to deal with such situations. You see, the Constitution has several safeguards for judges, which are required for us to do our job, free from any external pressures. These safeguards are required but they are also coming in theway of institutional responses,” said. Justice Roy, who retired after six years in the apex court Friday, spoke to The Indian Express on judicial discipline and the institutional response to the incident where Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav made remarks targeting Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. “But I must add that this is just one or two judges in over 1,000 judges of constitutional courts. Perhaps we made a mistake in choosing a person but it’s not as if everything is bad,” he said. The Indian Express had reported on January 9 that the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated the process of an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav, two weeks after he met the SC Collegium but refused to tender an apology. “But whenever such incidents happen, there are a few options. Trying to counsel or talk to the individual, transfer, holding back work, the in-house inquiry procedure or impeachment. Even when you transfer, if the government does not want it, there are instances when it has not given effect to such transfers,” said Justice Roy, who was a part of the five-member Collegium. Justice Roy has been part of several Constitution benches that delivered crucial verdicts. He was part of the bench in 2023 which held that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India will advise the President on appointments to the Election Commission of India until Parliament enacts a law on the subject. In November last year, Justice Roy penned a dissent in the nine-judge bench verdict which held that not private property is a "material resource of the community.” When asked if judges who on retirement or by resigning join politics is a worrying trend, Justice Roy said that while any government would prefer those “sympathetic to them” on the bench, it does not benefit to “interfere with the judiciary”. “Any government tends to prefer people on the bench who are sympathetic to their cause. It’s a natural tendency. Judges with their experience can balance into the right thing, but the government must also realise that it is not forever. We are a democratic country. Today, we have a government. Tomorrow, it could be another government. A mature government wouldn’t interfere too much with the judiciary. It does not benefit them.” In 2024, former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay resigned from his post and joined the BJP. He is now an MP from Tamluk in West Bengal. On the controversy over former CJI D Y Chandrachud inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a puja at his residence, Justice Roy said that although he is confident that “nothing of importance was discussed in that meeting,” it could have been avoided. On his post-retirement plans, Justice Roy said that while he has “politely declined” offers from the government, he is looking forward to watching plays and being a private citizen. “I was sounded out a few months ago to gauge my interest and I said no. I have politely declined when someone from the government called me as well. I want to be a private individual after retirement. My immediate task is to find rental accommodation and Delhi is an expensive city, so I hope for professional work to sustain myself. Apart from that, I have my calendar marked out for the theatre festival organised by the National School of Drama, which I will go see. When people say they must raise the retirement age, I say oh, no, not for me!,” he said.
