Will Supreme Court be able to restrain over-speaking HC/SC judges?

Guidelines being advisory in nature, difficult to implement
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s attempt to draw restraint boundaries for over-speaking judges while taking exception to a Karnataka HC judge’s uncalled-for remarks may not yield desired impact as its breach would not attract any drastic consequences, unlike the one faced almost a century ago by English Judge Hippy Hallet.
Hippy Hallet aka Sir Hugh Imbert Periam Hallett was an English attorney who had impressed all with his knowledge of law. He was appointed as a judge in 1939. To get to the core of the disputes, he used to incessantly interrupt arguing counsel to ask questions, often making them flounder in presenting the case coherently.
In one case - Jones vs National Coal Board [1957 (2) Queen's Bench 55] - he was so overbearing in his questions that both sides appealed against the verdict on identical grounds – the judge’s interruptions made it impossible for the counsel to put arguments properly.
The SC Collegium would have rated a judge like Hallet highly for probing away to reach the truth in a case and would have laughed at the predicament of lawyers put to such a situation by the judge. Not in England.
Justice Hallett's judgment was set aside. A fresh trial was ordered. The appeal judgment quoted Lord Chancellor Bacon, "Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over-speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal."
The English judiciary was so sensitive to this issue that the then Lord Chancellor sent for Justice Hallet and arranged that he could continue to sit for some time and then resign. Lord Alfred Thompson Denning, who set aside Justice Hallett's judgment, bemoaned the abrupt end to the judge's career.
He said, "It was a poignant case; for he was able and intelligent - but he asked too many questions." What was an isolated instance in England has become a general practice in India. This over-speaking nature of a few judges, who are able and intelligent, is chipping away at the carefully crafted dignity of the judiciary.
Coming back to the guidelines, the SC can at best caution or admonish a HC judge for breaching the advisory code of conduct in the courtroom. Will the guidelines be applicable to an HC judge’s speech at seminars or at conferences? Probably not.
Recently a SC Judge, upset over a certain yoga guru’s conduct, had remarked “We will rip you apart”. Will the to-be-framed guidelines be applicable to a SC Judge?
If a judge repeatedly violates the guidelines for courtroom observations and continues to indulge in irrational over-speaking, could it be regarded as misbehaviour or incapacity warranting his removal?
For the CJI to recommend removal of a SC or HC judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, there must be inquiry headed by a panel of judges who would have to give a report proving the misbehaviour or incapacity of the concerned judge and recommend against his continue in the constitutional post.
On receiving such a report, the CJI would have to decide forwarding the same to the government for initiation of removal motion under Article 124(4) in Parliament, which motion must receive support of two-third of the members present and voting in each House.
Are the SC and CJI ready to take Hippy Hallet type of drastic action against HC and SC judges? There are over 1,000 HC judges in the country. Would social media be the guiding light for initiation of action against over-speaking judges or the concerned HC Chief Justice?
If a constitutional post holder does not realize the dignity attached to the post he holds, no amount of guidelines would help bring sanity or balance in their observations.