Federal Constabulary in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan — A Constitutional and Juristic Analysis

By Justice (Retd.) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani

For the first time, the Government of Pakistan has extended a federal security law — the Frontier Constabulary (Reorganization) Ordinance, 2025 — to cover the entire country, including Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). This unprecedented move demands reflection on its constitutional, legal, and moral legitimacy, as well as on Pakistan’s broader constitutional and diplomatic posture on Kashmir.

Reorganization of the Frontier Constabulary

On 15 July 2025, through an ordinance, the Federal Government restructured the Frontier Constabulary (FC) — a paramilitary border security force originally established under the Frontier Constabulary Act, 1915 — and renamed it the Federal Constabulary.

The original FC was tasked with maintaining law and order in frontier regions, ensuring border security, and supporting peace in disturbed areas. However, evolving national security challenges — including terrorism, civil unrest, natural disasters, and internal instability — created a need for a modernized force capable of rapid and effective response to diverse emergencies.

Hence, the reorganization aims to transform the FC into a federal reserve security force that can assist provincial police, Islamabad Police, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Inspector General (IG) of the Federal Constabulary will be appointed by the federal government and assisted by officers from the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP).

This ordinance empowers the federal government to deploy the FC anywhere in Pakistan “for security purposes.” It also explicitly extends its application to Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan — regions that are neither constitutionally part of Pakistan nor recognized as its federating units. This inclusion is both unprecedented and controversial.

Historical Background: Security Forces in AJK

Before examining the legality of this extension, it is worth recalling AJK’s own experience with such forces.

In January 1964, under the Police Act of 1913 and its 1934 Rules, the Government of AJK established a “Border Police Force,” known as the Azad Kashmir Police Rangers. Its role was to patrol and monitor the Ceasefire Line (now the Line of Control), prevent violations, infiltration, smuggling, espionage, and protect civilians and property.

Earlier, Punjab had created its own Border Police Force, and in 1958 Pakistan established the Pakistan Rangers, tasked with internal security, counter-terrorism, and intelligence-based operations.

Thus, the Frontier Constabulary’s reorganization must be seen in the context of modern, multidimensional security requirements. With rising internal and transnational threats, it has become imperative to build a well-trained, technologically equipped, and rights-compliant security structure that can safeguard the state internally and externally — though maintaining that balance between security and civil liberty is increasingly difficult.

Precedents of Federal Laws in AJK

The 2025 Ordinance marks the first direct application of a federal law to AJK and GB, except for one previous instance: the Disaster Management Ordinance, 2006, and its subsequent Act of 2010.

After the devastating 2005 earthquake, international relief and reconstruction teams operated in AJK and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan lacked an integrated framework, leading to the 2006 Disaster Management Ordinance. Although not directly extended to AJK, a State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) was formed, functionally under the control of the Pakistan Army with AJK Government’s assistance.

Later, the National Disaster Management Act, 2010 was applied directly to AJK — again keeping operational control with the Army. Thus, the Federal Constabulary Ordinance becomes only the second case of direct federal legislation in these territories.

Constitutional Relationship Between AJK and Pakistan

Since 1975, under the AJK Interim Constitution, a Council was established to legislate on matters of a federal nature. However, in practice, all legislative and policy decisions on defence, foreign affairs, and internal security were formulated with the advice of Pakistan’s Ministries of Law, Interior, and Foreign Affairs.

Following the 13th Amendment in 2018, the legislative powers of the Council were transferred directly to the Government of Pakistan. Hence, this is the first time Pakistan has directly enacted and implemented a law in AJK after that amendment.

The subject matter of the Ordinance — defence and security — already falls under Pakistan’s jurisdiction as per the 1949 Karachi Agreement, which gave Pakistan authority over defence, foreign affairs, and communications concerning AJK. Therefore, in strict constitutional terms, this action can be justified.

Security, however, is not limited to military defence. It also encompasses internal threats that endanger constitutional order or public peace. When insurgency, terrorism, or organized rebellion emerges within a territory, the issue transcends law and order — it becomes a question of state defence and sovereignty.

Legality Versus Legitimacy

While the constitutional reasoning may appear sound, the question of legitimacy and propriety remains troubling. After the 18th Amendment, laws affecting such areas should ideally be made by Parliament, not through presidential ordinances.

The authority for Pakistan’s role over AJK also stems from the Establishment Division’s Notification of 11 May 1971, which declared that although AJK is not constitutionally part of Pakistan, it should be treated as equivalent to a province for administrative purposes. This notification was later incorporated as Article 19 of the AJK Constitution through the 13th Amendment.

Thus, the process is constitutionally defensible but democratically questionable, as the people of AJK and GB have no representation in the parliament that makes and enforces such laws.

The Political Paradox of AJK’s Governance

For decades, AJK’s political leadership has conceded almost complete control to Islamabad.
• One-third of AJK Assembly seats and 19% of public service posts are reserved for people permanently settled in Pakistan, enjoying full provincial citizenship there, under the title of “Kashmiri refugees.”
• Pakistan also retains exclusive authority over all federal subjects, emergency declarations, and even actions beyond the AJK Constitution.

This is an anomaly of the 21st century — a region ruled by a government not part of the federation, whose citizens are not Pakistani, and yet whose governance is controlled by Pakistan. This arrangement has become untenable and inconsistent with Pakistan’s democratic and constitutional evolution. It must change — not only for justice and legitimacy but also for Pakistan’s own stability and security.

Reasserting Pakistan’s Constitutional and Diplomatic Posture on Kashmir

The recent assertive posture Pakistan has taken against India following cross-border clashes has boosted Pakistan’s standing globally, restored confidence among resisting Kashmiris, and pushed India on the defensive. This proactive stance must continue — reinforced by clear constitutional, legal, and diplomatic steps that compel the world to reconsider the Kashmir question.

Pakistan should, therefore, formally:
1. Reaffirm that the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir in favour of India was conditional upon a plebiscite, which India failed to hold, rendering the accession incomplete and disputed.
2. Recognize and reaffirm the Standstill Agreement between Pakistan and the Maharaja, as Pakistan had accepted it prior to India’s occupation.
3. Emphasize that by 26 October 1947, when the Maharaja purported to accede to India, the “Azad” areas were already outside his control and hence excluded from the accession.
4. Recall that under the Karachi Agreement of 4 April 1949, the Azad Government and its ruling party associated with Pakistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan was placed under Pakistan’s administration.

In view of these historical, constitutional, and diplomatic facts, the free areas of the State are not legally part of India’s accession and should be treated accordingly.

Towards a Dignified Constitutional Future

The entire State of Jammu & Kashmir should, in line with UN Security Council Resolutions and the UN Charter, be recognized as a territory whose final disposition is to be determined by a plebiscite.

Pending that, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should be accorded a status equal to a province under Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan — or granted provisional provincial status under Article 1, Clauses 2(d) or 3 — while preserving their disputed status internationally.

Such an arrangement would replace the current anomalous and humiliating constitutional setup with one that ensures representation, dignity, and stability, thereby strengthening both Pakistan’s national integrity and its moral standing on the Kashmir issue.