This article is in response to a comment on the IndiaFacts articletitled,India is not the Vaticanwhere a reader askshow can the country expect Judge Kurian Joseph to be secular when called upon to preside over a Hindu-Christian case, considering his communal letter to the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India. The present article must also be seen in the context of Prime Minister Narendra Modiâ€™s address at the inaugural function of the Conference of Chief Justices in New Delhi where he emphasised the need for the judiciary not just to beseento be incorruptible but tobeincorruptible. The stench from the rot in the judiciary can no longer be ignored or wished away.Justice Paul Dinakaran, formerly judge in the Madras High Court, elevated as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and now elevated to the Apex Court is enveloped in the stench of his own alleged corruption and misuse of judicial powers and authority. Justice Paul Dinakaranâ€™s elevation is yet to be confirmed by the Collegium which has begun investigating charges of corruption leveled against him. This writer has made the conscious decision to bring judges into the purview of public scrutiny,and to break the silence on corruption and other vices in the Bar and judiciary, and to continue to shout from rooftops until such time the judiciary convincingly demonstrates that it can be trusted to make itself worthy of the sweeping powers and privileges bestowed upon it by the people of this great civilization. The myth of judicial propriety and infallibility began to come visibly and audibly unstuck at the seams in February-March 2009 in the wake of violent clashes which erupted between a section of goonda lawyers and the police onFebruary 17 and 19of this year inside the precincts of the Madras High Court. In the course of a series of columns on the events, this writer had observed that it was in the judiciaryâ€™s own interest to cleanse the Bar of these rowdies who, if not promptly disbarred would contaminate the pool from which would be chosen future judges. Justice Paul Dinakaran exemplifies the nationâ€™s indifference to the quality of men and women who enter our law collegesto study law, register themselves as lawyers and if they play their political cards right, don the robes as judges of our High Courts and the Supreme Court to preside over our destinies. Not surprisingly, neither the Chief Justice of India who peremptorily ordered the transfer of senior police officers who he opined were guilty of exceeding their professional limits on February 19 nor the Madras High Court chose to deal with the scum contaminating the Tamil Nadu Bar. Insider information suggests that the Madras High Court, which is now hearing the case, has decidednotto take into account Justice Srikrishnaâ€™s interim report of the clashes in which he had indicted the lawyers for breaking the law and one sitting judge for failing to deal with the growing lawlessness among a section of the lawyers. Judges hearing the case in the Madras High Court have also chosen not to take into account the fact that these goonda lawyers had molested visitors in Court Hall 3 onFebruary 17and are instead persisting in looking at the entire sequence of disgraceful events as merely a clash between the police and the lawyers. The judiciary therefore deserves to be critiqued as mercilessly as politicians or bureaucrats who too enjoy sweeping powers and privileges not enjoyed by the ordinary law-abiding citizen of this country, but who unlike the judges of the higher courts are not protected by the antediluvian armour of â€˜contempt of courtâ€™, and are ultimately accountable either directly to the people of this country or to Parliament. This writer has maintained that Christians and Muslims (with rare exceptions), no matter what positions they hold, use their positions and powers to serve their religion while Hindus serve secularism. JusticePaul Dinakaran, Sonia Gandhi, Union Minister of State for Railways E. Ahmed, the late unlamentedSamuel Rajasekhar Reddy,Farooqand otherAbdullahs,Prannoy Roy, TJS GeorgeandSyed Naqvitypify the first while JusticesVenugopal, VenkatachellaiahandMarkandeya Katju, Shashi Tharoor, LK Advani, Barkha DuttandRadha Venkatesanexemplify the second. When the judiciary, democracyâ€™s protector-of-last-resort, stoically maintains an anti-Hindu stance in the service of secularism, it is actually encouraging Christian and Muslim communalism of the worst kind.