THE Audio Leaks Commission was established to answer troubling questions about alleged interference in Pakistan’s judicial system. Instead, it became the centre of a constitutional battle over whether those questions could ever be independently examined. Every constitu-tional democracy must confront the same question: who ensures accountability when serious allegations concern the administration of justice itself? The answer can be neither political expediency nor institutional silence. Judicial independence is indispensable to the rule of law, but public confidence in it depends upon credible and impartial mechanisms through which serious allegations can be fairly examined. Independence and accountability are not compet-ing values; they are complementary safeguards.
The 2023 Audio Leaks Commission brought this tension into sharp focus. The controversy began with leaked telephone conversations allegedly involving members of the higher judi-ciary, lawyers, politicians and persons connected with judicial proceedings. Yet the debate soon shifted from whether the allegations were true to whether the Commission itself could lawfully investigate them. The mechanism created to discover the truth became the subject of litigation, while the truth it was intended to uncover remained unexamined. On 19 May 2023, the federal government constituted the Commission under the Pakistan Commissions of In-quiry Act, 2017. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, then the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed Chairman, alongside Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the Islamabad High Court and Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan of the Balochistan High Court.
The Commission was tasked with determining whether the recordings were authentic, mani-pulated or fabricated. It was also required to examine whether they disclosed violations af-fecting the judicial process, judicial independence, the right to a fair trial or equality of citi-zens and, where appropriate, to identify responsibility and recommend legal or disciplinary action. According to the government, some recordings allegedly concerned the formation of benches, attempts to influence proceedings, expectations about court decisions and the politi-cal use of judicial relationships. Whether these claims were true or false was precisely what the Commission had been established to determine.
Under Justice Isa’s leadership, the Commission began proceedings openly and emphasized that allegations affecting judicial credibility should be tested through a transparent legal process, not left to speculation, selective leaks or political narratives. That process, however, was short-lived. The notification was challenged before the Supreme Court by, among others, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan and office-bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association. On 26 May 2023, a five-member bench headed by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial suspended the notification and stayed the Commission’s proceedings.
The Court regarded the Commission’s establishment as executive interference in the judi-ciary’s internal affairs. It reasoned that allowing the executive unilaterally to select serving judges and assign them to investigate other judges, or matters concerning the Supreme Court’s internal functioning, could threaten judicial independence. The petitioners also ar-gued, and members of the bench observed, that allegations amounting to misconduct by supe-rior court judges ordinarily fall within the constitutional domain of the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209, rather than an executive-appointed Commission.
Yet the case exposed another constitutional question of equal importance. Once the Commis-sion was suspended, no alternative independent process was established to test the recordings or the allegations arising from them. The Commission’s validity was addressed, but the fac-tual questions remained unanswered. Who recorded the conversations and under what author-ity? Who leaked them? Were they genuine, manipulated or fabricated? If genuine, did they reveal improper attempts to influence judicial proceedings or were they part of a politically motivated campaign against the judiciary?
None of these questions was independently examined. The case, therefore, extends beyond the legality of the Commission. Reasonable lawyers may differ over whether the executive was constitutionally competent to establish it. The deeper question is what mechanism re-mained available once it was prevented from functioning. If one institution is barred from investigating allegations concerning the judiciary, another credible and independent mechan-ism must exist. Otherwise, serious matters affecting public confidence may remain beyond scrutiny. Courts derive authority not only from constitutional text but also from public confi-dence. Citizens are more likely to accept even controversial decisions when they believe the institution administering justice is prepared to confront credible allegations through fair pro-cedures. When allegations remain unresolved because no independent process exists, uncer-tainty erodes confidence regardless of their ultimate merit.
In 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions as infructuous because the Commission had effectively ceased to exist. Justice Isa had retired, while the remaining members had be-come judges of the Supreme Court. Legally, the controversy ended; constitutionally, the larg-er questions remained. The broader lesson extends beyond this dispute. A constitutional de-mocracy cannot permit covert surveillance, selective leaks or political manipulation to become instruments of pressure against judges. Nor can it preserve public confidence by declining to examine credible allegations merely because they concern the judiciary. Protecting privacy, preserving judicial independence and ensuring accountability are not mutually exclusive objectives.
Whatever one’s view of the decision to suspend the Commission, its practical consequence was clear: the allegations were never independently tested and no alternative mechanism was created. The case, therefore, exposed a constitutional gap in Pakistan’s legal framework. Judicial independence cannot rest upon immunity from scrutiny. Its legitimacy depends upon public confidence that credible allegations will be examined fairly, independently and with-out fear or favour. Truth is not the enemy of judicial independence; it is one of its strongest safeguards. The door to discovering the truth was closed, but the door to public doubt re-mained open.
—The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.
