law: 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
  
  whom-
  (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