Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
3. Investigation into misbehavior or incapacity of Judge by Committee .-
(1) If notice is given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of a Judge signed,-
(a) in the case of a notice given in the House of the People, by not less than one hundred members of that House;
(b) in the case of a notice given in the Council of States, by not less than fifty members of that Council; then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him , either admit the motion or admit the same.
(2) If the motion referred to in sub- section
(1) is admitted, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall keep
the motion pending and constitute, as soon as may be, for the purpose of making
an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed
for, a Committee consisting of three members of
(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices and other Judges of the Supreme Court;
(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts; and
(c) one shall be a person who is, in the opinion of the Speaker or , as the case may be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist:
Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub- section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted.
unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman:
Provided further that where notices of a motion as aforesaid are given in the Houses of Parliament on different dates, the notice which is given later shall stand rejected.
(3)The Committee shall frame definite charges against the Judge on the bases of which the investigation is proposed to be held.
(4)Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on which each such charge is based shall be communicated to the Judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a written statement of defense within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Committee
(5)Where it is alleged that the Judge is
unable to discharge the duties of his office efficiently due to any physical or
mental incapacity and the allegation is denied, the Committee may arrange for
the special examination of the Judge by such Medical Board as may be appointed
for the purpose by the Speaker or, as the case may be,
the Chairman or , where the Committee is constituted jointly by the speaker and the Chairman, by both of them, for the purpose and the Judge shall submit himself to such medical examination within the time specified in this behalf by the Committee.
(6)The Medical Board shall undertake such medical examination of the Judge as may be considered necessary and submit a court to the Committee stating therein whether the incapacity is such as to render the Judge unfit to continue in office.
(7)If the Judge refuses to undergo medical examination considered necessary by
the Medical Board, the Board shall submit a record to the Committee stating
therein the examination which the charge has refused to undergo, and the
Committee may, on receipt of such report, presume that the Judge suffers from
such physical or
mental incapacity as is alleged in the motion referred to in submission (1).
(8)The committee may, after considering the written statement of the judge and the medical report, if any, amend the charges framed under sub-section (3) and in such case; the Judge shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a fresh written statement of defense.
(9) The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker or the Chairman, or both, as the case may be, appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the Judge.
Comment: In the matter of allegations against a sitting judge of Supreme Court, directions were issued in this case for expeditious disposal of the matter and connected writ petitions. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1598