Islamabad vs. the Provinces: Where the Constitution Draws the Line
By: Muhammad Mateen Khan (MK)
An elected provincial government in Pakistan cannot simply be dismissed because the federal government has fallen out with it, wants a change of administration, or believes it is governing badly. While the Constitution provides a few ways for a provincial government to cease functioning before its normal five-year term, there is a strict difference between losing power through the provincial assembly and exceptional emergency steps where the federation temporarily steps in.
Legal experts point out that after the 18th Amendment in 2010, the path to removing a Chief Minister runs almost entirely through the provincial house. A Chief Minister goes if a majority of the assembly votes him out through a no-confidence motion, if he fails to win a vote of confidence summoned by the governor, if he dissolves the assembly himself, or if he loses his seat through defection or disqualification. In short, a provincial government can fall without a no-confidence vote, but it cannot fall without the provincial assembly having a say.
This was not always the case. In Pakistan’s past, a governor with presidential approval held wide powers to dissolve an assembly under the old Article 112(2)(b) if he felt the province could not be run according to the Constitution. That power was removed in 1997, restored in 2002, and finally done away with in 2010. Today, a governor has no independent authority to sack an elected government just because the central government wants a change.
The Constitution does contain two emergency provisions that allow central intervention. Under Article 234, if the president receives a report from the governor stating that the provincial government cannot function constitutionally, the federal government can temporarily assume provincial duties. However, this step requires approval from both houses of parliament and cannot last longer than six months. Under Article 232, the federal government can proclaim an emergency during grave threats like war or severe internal disturbance beyond the province’s control. For internal unrest, this normally requires a resolution from the provincial assembly itself.
Even under emergency provisions, past rulings by the Supreme Court and High Courts have established that central intervention can only suspend a Chief Minister’s executive duties—it cannot permanently remove him from office. If the central government or opposition wants to test whether a Chief Minister still holds a majority, the proper way under the Constitution is simple: call the assembly floor and count the votes.