Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s proposal to seek public consent for the creation of new provinces or administrative units has triggered a fresh constitutional debate in Pakistan. The interpretation of Articles 48 and 239 of the Constitution has assumed particular importance, raising questions about whether the country’s federal structure can be reorganised through a referendum or whether any change in provincial boundaries must follow the specific constitutional procedure prescribed by law.
Naqvi’s suggestion that public approval should be sought for the creation of new provinces or administrative units has prompted speculation over whether he was hinting at the possibility of deciding the future structure of Pakistan’s federal units through a referendum.
Although Naqvi did not explicitly use the word “referendum” in his recent remarks, his proposal to prepare a draft plan for new administrative units, present it before the public and seek their opinion has widely been interpreted as a possible reference to a broad-based public consultation or vote.
Speaking at the National Policy Dialogue in Lahore a few days ago, Naqvi said that any reorganisation of the country’s administrative system should not be imposed by an individual, political party or government.
He stressed that Parliament, experts and other stakeholders should debate the issue and that, ultimately, the public’s opinion should be sought. According to him, a proposal could be prepared in draft form and presented before the people, who could then be asked whether they accepted it or not.
The statement is significant because the Constitution itself provides a mechanism for holding a referendum on a matter of national importance. Under Article 48(6), if the prime minister considers it necessary to hold a referendum on a matter of national importance, the issue may be placed before a joint sitting of Parliament. If the joint sitting approves the proposal, the matter can be presented to the people in the form of a question that can be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
However, the provision does not explicitly state that a referendum can itself be used to establish a new province or alter the constitutional boundaries of an existing province.
This distinction is particularly important in light of Article 239, which establishes a specific constitutional procedure for amendments affecting provincial boundaries. Under the relevant provisions, an amendment seeking to alter the limits of a province cannot be passed without the required parliamentary majority. Moreover, where a constitutional amendment affects the limits of a province, it cannot be presented to the president for assent unless it has also been approved by the concerned provincial assembly by at least a two-thirds majority of its total membership.
Constitutional experts therefore face an important question: can the general constitutional provision allowing a referendum under Article 48 override or bypass the specific procedure prescribed for changing provincial boundaries?
The issue becomes even more complicated because of the distinction between “new provinces” and “administrative units.” Establishing a new province would necessarily raise constitutional, territorial and political questions because it would alter the country’s existing federal structure. By contrast, federal or provincial governments may create administrative arrangements at lower levels without necessarily changing the constitutional structure of the federation.
Naqvi appears to have deliberately kept his proposal broad by referring to both new provinces and administrative units. This distinction could become central to any future debate because an administrative reorganisation does not necessarily carry the same constitutional consequences as the creation of a new province.
The controversy is therefore no longer limited to the political question of whether Pakistan needs additional provinces or smaller administrative units. It has developed into a fundamental constitutional debate over the relationship between public opinion, parliamentary authority and the constitutional process for altering provincial boundaries.
One key question is whether a referendum could provide a political mandate from the people for reorganising the federation, or whether any change to provincial boundaries would necessarily have to pass through the constitutional mechanism involving both Parliament and the provincial assembly concerned.
The answer could have far-reaching implications for any future proposal to create new provinces in Pakistan. Public support may provide political legitimacy to a proposal, but whether that support alone can produce a legally binding constitutional change remains a separate question.
Ultimately, the debate will depend on how Articles 48 and 239 are interpreted together. While Article 48 provides a constitutional route for seeking the public’s opinion on a matter of national importance, Article 239 establishes a specific process for constitutional amendments, particularly those involving provincial boundaries.
Until this constitutional question is settled, any proposal for creating new provinces through a referendum would likely face significant legal and political scrutiny. The issue could therefore become an important test of how Pakistan balances direct public participation with the constitutional procedures governing its federal structure.
About The Author
