ET again, secretly taped recordings of conversations V involving prominent public figures have been `leaked` to the public, this time dragging the country`s superior judiciary into controversy. The recordings, which the government claims are proof of PML-Q leader and former Punjab chief minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi `fixing` cases before a preferred judge, were played by Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah at a press conference on Thursday. Referring to the tapes, Mr Sanaullah asked the judiciary to `prevent an irreparable loss to its credibility`. The interior minister claimed that the political actors who were once helped to power by the establishment now want a lifeline from the judiciary. `They want to make the judiciary subservient,` he claimed.

Whether the recordings are real or doctored seems secondary to the fact that it is now a given that our state has been likely illegally spying on its own citizens. Mr Sanaullah seems convinced of the authenticity of these tapes, so the question arises: who recorded them? It may be noted that there are only a handful of state institutions that have the capability and resources to spy on powerful individuals with such ease. Some of them report to the interior ministry. Has Mr Sanaullah himself authorised the tapping of rival politicians` phone calls? He had certainly made light of the practice during the PM Office leaks saga. If not, has he made any effort to determine who is involved in this illegal practice, and will they be held accountable? One also wonders how many judges, bureaucrats, politicians and even ordinary citizens have been living in fear of such leaks, and how many are being blackmailed with them. As far as the content of the audio tapes is concerned, it would appear that it is now in the interest of the superior judiciary to have the matter investigated.

All individuals accused of interfering in and influencing judicial proceedings should be given a chance to present a defence. If the probe finds any evidence of wrongdoing, the consequences should be severe. Otherwise, the stench of the accusation will continue to linger. If, however, no wrongdoing is proven, the interior minister should answer why he has so publicly challenged the integrity of the judiciary. Perhaps he ought to be tried by the same laws that he has been so keenly pushing to `protect` the institutions of the state from disrepute.