0
THE Constitution of Pakistan in palpable terms, accords ‘precedence’ to a province, where the ‘well-head’ of natural gas is situated, so as to meet its requirements from that ‘well-head’ before gas can be transmitted to other provinces. Alas, this constitutional dictum has invariably been passed over.
Not all constitutions deal with hydrocarbons. Among the oldest effective written constitutions are the constitutions of the US (1789), Norway (1814), the Netherlands (1815), Belgium (1831) and Luxembourg (1868), all spectacularly silent on oil and gas, though they bespeak of other natural resources. This silence has an explanation; the ‘Fredonia gas well’ or the first ‘gas-well’ only started production in 1825. Conversely, the ‘Oil Springs’ in Ontario and ‘Drake oil well’ in Pennsylvania, the ‘first oil wells’ started production as late as 1858 and 1859 respectively. By the turn of the 20th century, the primary mode of transport in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and New York was still the horse-drawn carriage.
Thus, only constitutions which succeed the construction of the oil refinery and invention of the diesel engine attend to oil and gas in any meaningful way, such as Pakistan’s Constitution. One way in which our Constitution attends to indigenously produced ‘natural gas’ is by determining ‘priority of use’. Article 158, which enshrines the doctrine of ‘priority of use’, reads: “The Province in which a well-head of natural gas is situated shall have precedence over other parts of Pakistan in meeting the requirements from that well-head, subject to the commitments and obligations as on the commencing day.”
Pakistan produced 2,890 mmcfd of gas in 2024-2025 with Sindh, Balochistan and KP cumulatively producing 2,822 mmcfd and Punjab a meagre 68 mmcfd. Yet, as per Pakistan’s Energy Yearbook, about 1,540 mmcfd of this indigenously produced gas was consumed by Punjab, almost half the national production. This is a recurring pattern. Despite having abundant gas, Sindh, Balochistan and KP experience substantial gas load-shedding in the domestic, industrial and commercial sectors, which doesn’t coalesce with the dicta of Article 158.
Gas-rich provinces are unable to meet their own needs.
There was no provision pari materia with the present Article 158 in Pakistan’s constitutions of 1962 or 1956. The constitutional edict enshrining ‘priority of use’ was born in the wake of the Pakistan-India war of 1971 and East Pakistan’s secession. The lesson forged in the tragedy of civil war was that the natural resources of provinces ought not to be exploited without allowing the native people to benefit from them first. The likes of Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, Ataullah Mengal and Khair Bakhsh Marri prorogated the doctrine of ‘priority of use’, and in the national debate which led to the adoption of the 1973 Constitution, they prevailed. Hence, Article 158 was incorporated in the nation’s highest legal norm under Part V, Chapter 3 ‘special provisions’. Unlike ‘principles of policy’ which feature in Part II, Chapter 2 of the Constitution, and are largely seen as ‘aspirational’, the ‘special provisions’ are mandatory.
The grievances of consumers from Sindh and KP have repeatedly come up before the Sindh and Peshawar high courts. The former in ‘Engro Fertiliser vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ (2011), ‘Fashion Knit Industries vs Sui Southern Gas Company’ (2016), and Ramesh Kumar vs Federation of Pakistan’ (2015) and the latter in ‘Lucky Cement vs Kohinoor Textile Mills’ (2010) and ‘Cherat Cement vs Government of Pakistan’ (2014) have held that natural gas produced in the province cannot be siphoned out of it prior to fulfilling the requirements of the province. However, the rulings have failed to disturb the status quo.
The federal government challenged each of these rulings before the Supreme Court which formed a larger bench to hear the appeals, but although many years have lapsed, the appeals lie dormant, and have been now transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court, with no apparent possibility of being heard anytime soon. Meanwhile, the government, either through the cabinet, the Prime Minister’s directives or the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council, attempts to regulate the distribution of natural gas, whereas according to the constitutional scheme ‘mineral oil and natural gas’ feature in Serial 2 of Part II of the Federal Legislative List, and thus it is the Council of Common Interests, which has been given the mandate to make policy decisions in this respect.
The constitutional concession regarding ‘priority of use’ of indigenously produced natural gas is obvious enough, we must avoid relegating it to the same category as the ‘commerce clause’ of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which for the local people (Indian Tribes) largely went unrealised.
The writer is a practising barrister.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2026
