IN 2019, a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court rekindled hopes of accession to Pakistan among the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). The region`s status as part of the disputed Kashmir territory had long obstructed this aspiration. The same year also saw the revocation of Article 370 in occupied Kashmir by India, which transformed Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, sparking controversy.

Despite demands by locals for accession, Pakistan has tarried in integrating GB. In 2015, the PML-N government established a committee under Sartaj Aziz to examine the region`s status.

It largely endorsed the residents` demands for integration and constitutional rights. However, the government later issued the contentious Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, presenting it as a move towards greater empowerment. This order reversed key provisions of the more favourable 2009 Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and SelfGovernance Order that had been introduced by the PPP government.

When the PTI came to power, it reneged on its commitment to address the issue, deflecting local political pressure by creating the miasma of progress towards provincial status for GB.

However, it maintained the undemocratic 2018 order rooted in colonialist regulations. It also scuttled a bill proposed by the Balochistan Awami Party for granting GB provincial status.

Amid these developments, civil society challenged the situation in the Supreme Court, where, after extended deliberations, a significant judgement was delivered. A seven-member bench, led by the chief justice, summarised its findings thus: `We now turn to a question of importance, which is crucial for the success of the project of creating a framework of governance for GB of a constitutional nature. Any framework of such a nature necessarily implies, and indeed it could be said demands, a degree of continuity in the manner provided in the Proposed Order... .

Otherwise, what good is it? Of what value are the fundamental rights enshrined in such a framework, and how independent can a judiciary created thereby be, if the structure is impermanent,and even ephemeral? This is all the more so where the framework is put in place in exercise of executive authority, by means of an Order promulgated by the President. Such an Order can be put in place ... with a stroke of the pen, but likewise instantly cast into oblivion.

`Indeed, the manner in which the 2009 Order was replaced by the 2018 Order is a telling illustration of the point now under consideration.

During the course of the hearing of these petitions, and in light of the submissions by various learned counsel and the observations of the Court, the Federal Government constituted a committee ...to review the entire matter, and place before the Court a draft of a fresh Orderfor the governance of GB. This was duly done, and the draft ... examined by the Court... . In our view, that draft, as modified in the manner hereinafter stated, does provide a suitable framework in the hue of constitutional nature for the governance of GB. The Federal Government stands committed to promulgating the same ...

in substitution of the 2018 Order.

The following speaking orders were then issued.

I. `The Proposed Order ... shall be forthwith promulgated by the President on the advice of the Federal Government, and in any case within a fortnight hereof; II. `No amendment shall be made to the Order as so promulgated except in terms of the procedure provided in Article 124 of the same, nor shall it be repealed or substituted, without the instrument amending, repealing or substituting (as the case may be) the same being placed before this Court by the Federation through an application that will be treated as a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Nothingin this judgement shall be construed to limit the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Proposed Order itself; and III. If the Order promulgated is repealed or substituted by an Act of Parliament the validity thereof, if challenged, shall be examined on the touchstone of the Constitution.

Despite this, the PMLgovernment, and later the PTI government ignored the court`s directives. Citing a petition from a private individual as an excuse, the PTI government delayed implementing the judgement. Rather than upholding its verdict, the Supreme Court scheduled hearings and considered unverified claims that the public wanted parliamentary approval for the legislation, embracing this weak rationale for postponement.

With local assembly elections approaching, political parties have renewed calls for GB`s provisional provincial status and issued a press statement collectively. However, residents remain cautious. The current order of 2018 has four key flaws: The order grants the prime minister unbridled authority devoid of accountability. It reduces the council with local representation for federal subjects to a consultative, powerless entity. The appointment process for superior courts lacks transparency and relies on government discretion, without an institutional framework for merit-based selection. The 2018 order retains the power to amend the entire governance structure arbitrarily.

Given the need for democratic and accountable governance in GB, the quest for a provisional province warrants immediate attention. To rectify its earlier missteps, the PML-N must implement the judicial verdict and issue the 2019 legal framework draft as directed by the court. Such a move would address the breaches of the draconian 2018 order, issued against the Sartaj Aziz Committee`s recommendations. The least the people can expect from the prime minister is respectforthe apexcourt.

The writer, a former IGP Sindh, belongs to Gilgit-Baltistan.