IN recent times, a national dialogue has suddenly taken centre stage on the setting up of new provinces/ administrative units. It is perhaps irrelevant to seek its origin. Suffice it to say that the issue has assumed importance politically and is at the heart of all political debate that takes place. In all inquiries, the first step is to ask the right question. The right question that begs an answer is: does our Constitution envisage the creation of new provinces so as to change Pakistan’s geographic contours?

Pakistan is a federal republic and its territories comprise the provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh, apart from the federal capital. Part XI of the Constitution deals with amendment of the Constitution wherein resides a specific provision that relates to an amendment which would have the effect of altering the limits of a province. Clause (4) of Article 239 provides that: “A bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a province shall not be presented to the president for assent unless it has been passed by the provincial assembly of that province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.”

At first blush, this clause brings forth the intention of the framers of the Constitution that they plainly understood that Pakistan’s ultimate geographic shape would depend on future laws and constitutional amendments. While emphatically rejecting future unilateral cessation they all accepted the possibility of genuine national legal actions that might redraw the legal map.

It could be redrawn by resort to Article 239 (4) by altering limits of a province or as provided in Article 1 (2)(d)(3) by admitting into the federation new states or areas by law. It is clear that an amendment to alter the limits of a province requires an additional guardrail. It must be passed by the assembly of that province. But such an amendment merely operates to alter the limits of that very province and no more. It does not create a new province thereby. For that, amendment will have to be made in Article 1 which defines the territories of Pakistan and mentions the four provinces at present.

Democracy works if the people are consulted.

Interestingly, limits of a province have not been mentioned in the Constitution. This is delineated in a law enacted as Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order 1970 (P.O No.1 of 1970) which was saved as an existing law at the promulgation of the 1973 Constitution. It can be argued that a mere amendment in Order 1970 should suffice to create a new province but that argument runs a choppy course. The more nuanced question is regarding the legitimacy of the present government to undertake such a structural change in the Constitution.

In representative democracy, this requires a mandate built on the election manifesto upon which a political party is elected to office. There is no cavil that no such mandate was handed to the present government at the last elections since the question was not before them to be considered. That would be a travesty of the essence of representative democracy as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution while proclaiming that “we the people of Pakistan … do hereby, through our representatives in the National Assembly, adopt, enact and give to ourselves, this Constitution”. Thus, the Constitution was given to themselves by the people and any change in the basic structure of the Constitution would require essentially a fresh mandate from the people. This, in my opinion, is a constitutional imperative which must be preserved inviolate.

As Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu said: we did these policies without asking the people, without building a consensus around it and so it became a symbol of elites working against working class communities. Democracy works if you actually ask people. Democracy is about voice and self-government. The failure was we did not create the right type of information ecosystem so that people understood what was the trade-off.

It is very important that we make the commitment that we do not, as the more educated segment of society, impose our values without asking and consulting people. It is an affront to them. There are two ways to seek people’s opinion if the Constitution is to be wrenched out of its original bearings and repurposed. Fresh elections with new provinces as the main plank, or referendum under Article 48(6) of the Constitution. The latter course is piled high with difficulty but the bottom line is that any change of this magnitude requires people’s will and clear mandate. It should not be achieved by deft manoeuvres.

The writer is a former judge of the Lahore High Court.

Published in Dawn, September 21st, 2026