Constitutional Crisis in Pakistan

A Chequered Past

Pakistan’s political and constitutional history has repeatedly witnessed confrontation among political parties, elected governments, presidents, courts and other state institutions.

The constitutional crisis surrounding the 2022 vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan revived memories of earlier periods of intense political instability.

Pakistan has experienced similar confrontations in different forms throughout its history, including:

• The Pakistan National Alliance movement against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
• The dismissal of elected governments under Article 58(2)(b)
• No-confidence motions against prime ministers
• Military interventions
• Judicial validation and rejection of extra-constitutional measures

Such recurring crises have weakened institutional development, deepened political polarisation and repeatedly tested the supremacy of the Constitution.

No individual, political party or institution can remain above the Constitution if democratic stability is to become sustainable in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Recurring Constitutional Crises

The political confrontation of 2022 was not an isolated event.

Pakistan’s history contains several examples in which constitutional mechanisms became intertwined with political conflict.

In October 1989, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, led by Nawaz Sharif, moved a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Although her government survived the motion, it was dismissed in August 1990 by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan through Article 58(2)(b).

Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister in 1990 but was also dismissed by the same President in 1993.

The Supreme Court restored his government, but the political confrontation ultimately resulted in the resignation of both the President and the Prime Minister in July 1993.

Political Polarisation and Constitutional Breakdown

The source argues that Pakistan repeatedly falls into a cycle in which political rivalry becomes so intense that constitutional mechanisms themselves become contested.

Political crises are often accompanied by:

• Nationalist rhetoric
• Religious mobilisation
• Accusations of disloyalty
• Security-related allegations
• Political victimisation

Instead of functioning as neutral rules of political competition, constitutional provisions sometimes become part of partisan confrontation.

Emergence of the 2022 Constitutional Crisis

The immediate constitutional crisis emerged on April 3, 2022, when Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Qasim Khan Suri dismissed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The ruling was justified on the basis of an alleged foreign conspiracy and linked with Article 5 of the Constitution.

Shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Imran Khan advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly.

The President accepted the advice under Article 58.

The developments triggered immediate constitutional controversy and prompted the Supreme Court of Pakistan to take suo motu notice.

Supreme Court Intervention

The Supreme Court examined the Deputy Speaker’s ruling, dissolution of the National Assembly and the constitutional sequence that followed.

The Court unanimously held that:

• The Deputy Speaker’s ruling was unconstitutional
• The prorogation of the National Assembly was invalid
• The Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the Assembly was unconstitutional
• The subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly was invalid

The Court ordered the National Assembly to be reconvened.

On April 10, 2022, the no-confidence motion was passed by 174 members, removing Imran Khan from office.

He became the first Prime Minister in Pakistan’s history to lose office through a successful parliamentary vote of no-confidence.

Constitutional Articles at the Centre of the Crisis

The 2022 crisis brought several constitutional provisions into national debate.

Article 58 – Dissolution of the National Assembly

Article 58 deals with dissolution of the National Assembly.

Under the constitutional framework, the President may dissolve the National Assembly when advised by the Prime Minister, subject to constitutional limitations.

The source emphasises that once a valid no-confidence motion has been moved against a Prime Minister, the power to advise dissolution becomes constitutionally restricted.

Therefore, connecting Article 5 with Articles 58 and 95 to prevent the no-confidence process became one of the central constitutional controversies of the crisis.

Article 5 – Loyalty to the State and Obedience to the Constitution

Article 5 contains two important principles.

• Clause 1: Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen.
• Clause 2: Obedience to the Constitution and law is an inviolable obligation.

The PTI relied on the first clause while advancing its allegation that the no-confidence motion was linked to a foreign-backed regime-change conspiracy.

The opposition, however, argued that the constitutional obligation to obey the Constitution required the parliamentary vote to proceed according to Article 95.

Article 95 – Vote of No-Confidence Against the Prime Minister

Article 95 establishes the constitutional mechanism for removing a Prime Minister through a vote of no-confidence.

Clause 1

A no-confidence resolution may be moved by not less than twenty percent of the total membership of the National Assembly.

Clause 2

The resolution cannot be voted upon before three days have passed from the date it is moved, nor later than seven days.

Clause 3

A no-confidence resolution cannot be moved while the National Assembly is considering demands for grants relating to the Annual Budget Statement.

Clause 4

If the resolution is passed by a majority of the total membership of the National Assembly, the Prime Minister ceases to hold office.

Article 63A – Disqualification on Grounds of Defection

Article 63A governs defection by members of a parliamentary party.

It applies where a member:

• Resigns from the political party
• Joins another parliamentary party
• Votes or abstains contrary to party directions in specified constitutional matters

These matters include:

• Election of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister
• Vote of confidence
• Vote of no-confidence
• Money Bills
• Constitutional amendments

The source also refers to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 63A concerning the votes of defecting lawmakers.

Article 69 – Courts and Parliamentary Proceedings

Article 69 protects parliamentary proceedings from judicial interference where the issue involves mere procedural irregularity.

It provides that parliamentary proceedings cannot ordinarily be challenged simply on the basis of procedural defects.

However, the 2022 crisis raised a more fundamental issue: whether the Deputy Speaker’s actions amounted merely to an irregularity or constituted a violation of the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court intervened on the basis that constitutional violations fall beyond the protection normally associated with internal parliamentary procedure.

The 2022 Crisis Compared with Earlier No-Confidence Motions

The source identifies significant differences between the 2022 crisis and earlier parliamentary confrontations.

1. Circumventing the Parliamentary Vote

Earlier governments facing no-confidence motions generally allowed parliamentary voting to proceed.

In 2022, the controversy centred on attempts to prevent or delay the vote itself.

2. Foreign Conspiracy Narrative

The PTI government linked the loss of its parliamentary majority with an alleged foreign regime-change conspiracy.

This introduced an external-security narrative into what was fundamentally a parliamentary constitutional process.

3. Repetition of the Crisis in Punjab

Political confrontation also spread to Punjab, where disputes emerged regarding:

• Assembly sessions
• Election of the Chief Minister
• Role of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
• Governor’s constitutional responsibilities

4. Defections and Political Fragmentation

Dissident legislators emerged both at the federal level and in Punjab.

This intensified debate over Article 63A, party discipline and the constitutional position of defecting lawmakers.

History of Supreme Court Interventions in Constitutional Crises

The judiciary has played a central and sometimes controversial role in Pakistan’s constitutional history.

Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan Case – 1955

One of the earliest major constitutional cases followed Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad’s dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954.

Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan challenged the dissolution before the Chief Court of Sindh.

The Chief Court declared the dissolution invalid.

However, the Federal Court, headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, reversed the decision on technical grounds.

The case became an important early precedent in Pakistan’s constitutional development.

State v. Dosso – 1958

The constitutional legitimacy of the 1958 martial law regime came before the Supreme Court in the State v. Dosso case.

The Court relied upon ideas associated with Hans Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality and treated a successful coup or revolution as capable of creating a new legal order.

The decision later became one of the most heavily criticised judgments in Pakistan’s constitutional history.

Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab – 1972

The Supreme Court later rejected the reasoning associated with Dosso in the landmark Asma Jilani case.

The Court declared Yahya Khan’s martial law unconstitutional.

The judgment raised hopes that future extra-constitutional interventions would not receive judicial validation.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto Case – 1977

Those hopes were weakened when the Supreme Court validated General Zia-ul-Haq’s military intervention through the doctrine of state necessity.

The decision once again demonstrated the judiciary’s complicated relationship with military rule.

Haji Saifullah Case – 1989

The Supreme Court declared the dissolution of the National Assembly and removal of Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo illegal.

However, because elections had already taken place, the dissolved Assembly was not restored.

Benazir Bhutto Governments and Article 58(2)(b)

The Supreme Court upheld dissolution of assemblies following the removal of Benazir Bhutto’s governments in 1990 and 1996.

These decisions reflected the powerful constitutional role exercised by the presidency under Article 58(2)(b) during that period.

Nawaz Sharif Restoration – 1993

In contrast, the Supreme Court restored Nawaz Sharif’s government in 1993 after striking down the presidential dissolution order.

The decision demonstrated that judicial responses to dissolutions were not always uniform.

Pervez Musharraf’s Coup – 1999

The military takeover led by General Pervez Musharraf was also given constitutional space through judicial reliance on the doctrine of necessity.

This again revived criticism of judicial validation of extra-constitutional interventions.

Emergency of November 3, 2007

On November 3, 2007, General Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended constitutional arrangements.

A seven-member Supreme Court bench initially declared the action illegal.

A subsequently reconstituted Supreme Court later validated the emergency and Provisional Constitutional Order.

In July 2009, the Supreme Court declared Musharraf’s November 3 actions illegal and unconstitutional.

The Doctrine of Necessity and Pakistan’s Constitutional Development

The repeated use of the doctrine of necessity significantly shaped Pakistan’s constitutional trajectory.

It created a pattern in which unconstitutional political changes could sometimes receive retrospective judicial legitimacy.

The long-term consequences included:

• Weakening constitutional supremacy
• Encouraging extra-constitutional intervention
• Creating institutional uncertainty
• Weakening democratic continuity

Constitutional Crisis in Punjab

The federal constitutional crisis was accompanied by intense political confrontation in Punjab.

Chief Minister Usman Buzdar tendered his resignation amid the wider political crisis.

The contest for the office of Chief Minister subsequently involved:

• Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi
• Hamza Shehbaz
• Punjab Assembly Speaker
• Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari
• Governor of Punjab

Disagreements emerged over the scheduling of Assembly sessions, conduct of the election and administration of the oath of office.

The dispute generated further constitutional uncertainty and demonstrated how a federal political confrontation could spread into provincial institutions.

Causes of Repeated Constitutional Crises in Pakistan

1. Political Polarisation

Extreme political rivalry creates incentives for parties to test constitutional limits instead of resolving disputes through institutional dialogue.

2. Weak Political Institutions

Political parties and legislatures have often remained weaker than other state institutions.

3. Personality-Centred Politics

Political competition frequently revolves around individual leaders rather than stable institutions and policy programmes.

4. History of Extra-Constitutional Intervention

Repeated disruptions of constitutional government have weakened democratic conventions.

5. Judicialisation of Politics

Political disputes frequently move from Parliament into the courts.

This increases judicial involvement in inherently political conflicts.

6. Weak Parliamentary Culture

Parliamentary negotiations and compromises are often replaced by:

• Street agitation
• Boycotts
• Long marches
• Institutional confrontation

Impact of Constitutional and Political Instability

1. Economic Growth

Political uncertainty discourages domestic and foreign investment.

Businesses hesitate to commit capital when government policy and institutional stability remain uncertain.

2. Inflation and Unemployment

Political instability can worsen economic uncertainty and weaken investment, production and employment creation.

3. Social Unrest

Prolonged confrontation encourages protests, strikes and wider public frustration.

4. Investor Confidence

Investors require predictable laws, institutions and policies.

Constitutional crises send negative signals regarding long-term political stability.

5. Democratic Legitimacy

Repeated constitutional breakdowns weaken public confidence in parliamentary democracy.

Way Forward

1. Uphold Constitutional Supremacy

The Constitution must remain above the interests of political parties, governments and state institutions.

No stakeholder should selectively invoke constitutional provisions for temporary political advantage.

2. Strengthen Parliament

Parliament must become the primary forum for resolving political disagreements.

No-confidence motions, leadership contests and legislative disputes should be settled through constitutional parliamentary procedures.

3. Strengthen Democratic Institutions

Stable democracy requires strong:

• Parliament
• Political parties
• Election institutions
• Judiciary
• Local governments

4. Encourage Political Dialogue

Political rivals must accept each other as legitimate participants in democratic competition.

Dialogue and compromise are essential elements of parliamentary government.

5. Respect Judicial Independence

The judiciary must protect the Constitution while avoiding unnecessary involvement in purely political matters.

Judicial credibility depends on consistency, independence and constitutional interpretation free from political pressure.

6. Reject Extra-Constitutional Solutions

Political crises must never become justification for military or other unconstitutional intervention.

Democratic institutions develop only when constitutional continuity is maintained.

7. Develop Constitutional Literacy

Citizens, legislators and political workers should better understand:

• Constitutional rights
• Parliamentary procedures
• Institutional limits
• Rule of law

8. Ensure Democratic Continuity

Regular elections, peaceful transfers of power and completion of constitutional processes help democratic norms become institutionalised.

Political Stability and Economic Prosperity

Political and constitutional stability are closely connected with economic development.

When governments repeatedly face institutional crises, policymaking becomes short-term and investors become cautious.

Political instability can therefore contribute to:

• Lower investment
• Reduced productivity
• Weak economic growth
• Higher unemployment
• Greater uncertainty

Economic prosperity consequently requires a predictable constitutional and political environment.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s constitutional history has been marked by repeated confrontations involving elected governments, presidents, military rulers, political parties and the judiciary.

From the Maulvi Tamizuddin case and Dosso judgment to the use of Article 58(2)(b), military interventions and the 2022 no-confidence crisis, constitutional instability has repeatedly disrupted democratic development.

The crisis of 2022 again demonstrated the importance of following constitutional procedures even during intense political confrontation.

Articles 5, 58, 63A, 69 and 95 became central to national debate, while the Supreme Court once again assumed a decisive role in resolving institutional conflict.

The long-term lesson is simple: political disagreements must remain subordinate to constitutional rules.

Democracy cannot mature when every political crisis becomes a constitutional crisis.

No political leader, government or institution is supreme. The Constitution must remain supreme if Pakistan is to achieve political stability, democratic continuity and sustainable economic prosperity.