AJK SC rules refugee seats constitutionally protected, cannot be altered
Court says constitutional amendments must follow Article 33 and rejects changes through protests or pressure
Web DeskJune 07, 20265 min read
facebook twitter whatsup linkded email
An aerial view from a Pakistan military chopper shows Muzaffarabad, AJK. PHOTO: REUTERS
The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) on Sunday ruled that the 12 seats reserved for refugees in the Legislative Assembly are constitutionally protected and cannot be altered through administrative measures, political agreements, or public pressure, according to a detailed advisory opinion issued on a presidential reference.
The 53-member AJK Legislative Assembly includes 12 seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees who migrated from Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir during the conflicts of 1947 and 1965 and are now settled across Pakistan.
Six seats represent refugees from the Jammu division, estimated at around 434,000 people, while six represent refugees from the Kashmir Valley, whose population is estimated at about 30,000.
The issue of refugee representation has long been a key demand of the
now-banned Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), which led a series of protests last year that turned violent and resulted in several deaths.
In its opinion, the court reaffirmed that the refugee seats are guaranteed under Article 22 of the AJK Constitution and are rooted in a long legislative history dating back to electoral arrangements introduced in 1960 and subsequent constitutional reforms in 1964 and 1970.
The court described the seats as a “constitutional expression of a profound historical and juridical truth” arising from the displacement of Kashmiris following the 1947 partition and subsequent conflict. It noted that the arrangement was further strengthened through successive legal instruments before being explicitly incorporated into the Constitution through the 13th Amendment.
Emphasising constitutional supremacy, the court held that any change to the composition of the Assembly can only be made through the amendment procedure laid down in Article 33.
“The provisions of the Constitution may be amended in accordance with Article 33,” the opinion stated, adding that the amendment process is “exhaustive and exclusive” and that no authority other than the legislature can lawfully alter constitutional provisions.
The court said executive orders, political agreements, and public agitation have no legal effect in changing the Constitution, stressing that constitutional change must occur through “public mandate, parliamentary debate and constitutional procedure”.
A significant portion of the opinion addressed the use of protests and blockades to press political demands. While affirming that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, the court said the right is “neither absolute nor unrestricted” and must be exercised in a manner consistent with public order and the rights of others.
The court warned that road blockades, forced business closures and disruptions to supply routes fall outside constitutional protection. “The exercise of one Fundamental Right cannot be permitted in a manner that substantially impairs or destroys the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to others,” it said.
It further observed that attempts to secure constitutional change through coercive means are “legally unenforceable” and incompatible with the rule of law. “The Constitution protects peaceful dissent; it does not protect conduct that undermines public order,” the opinion added.
The court also underscored the constitutional requirement to hold timely elections, referring to Article 22(4), which mandates that general elections be conducted within the prescribed period.
Describing the obligation as mandatory and non-negotiable, the court said constitutional timelines “admit of no exception” and cannot be delayed due to political uncertainty or public agitation.
It directed the Election Commission and relevant executive authorities to ensure that free, fair and transparent elections are conducted within the constitutionally mandated timeframe, while maintaining conditions necessary for polling.
Tracing the historical evolution of refugee representation, the court noted that refugee seats have existed in various forms since 1960 and have been consistently retained through successive constitutional and legal frameworks.
It described the arrangement as a “continuously affirmed constitutional principle” reflecting the political status of displaced Kashmiris and said its uninterrupted continuation demonstrates that refugee representation is a “deep-rooted constitutional commitment” rather than a temporary administrative measure.
The court reiterated that its opinion is advisory in nature and does not create enforceable orders between parties. It said the purpose of the reference was to assist constitutional authorities rather than adjudicate a dispute in the conventional sense.
The ruling comes two days after the AJK government
declared JAAC a proscribed organisation, accusing it of involvement in terrorism, promoting hatred and creating anarchy ahead of the group's planned protest on June 9.
The move also came hours after the AJK Election Commission
announced that general elections for the Legislative Assembly will be held on July 27. The commission said preparations were under way to ensure transparent, orderly and impartial elections under judicial supervision.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)
criticised the government's decision to ban JAAC.
“If JAAC was truly a terrorist organisation, why did the government spend months negotiating with it, signing agreements with it, implementing its demands, holding meetings with its leadership and treating it as a legitimate stakeholder until yesterday?” the party said in a statement.
The 12 seats
The issue of refugee representation has long been a key demand of the JAAC, which led a series of protests last year that turned violent and resulted in the deaths of several people.
The region witnessed one of its most turbulent periods in October of 2025 when protests led by the JAAC erupted over demands for constitutional and governance reforms. At least
nine people, including three policemen, were killed during the unrest.
The JAAC, which organised the protests and strike, had presented a wide-ranging charter of demands, including an end to the privileges enjoyed by the ruling elite, the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for refugees, and the scrapping of the quota system.
Two days after the violence, the government and the JAAC
reached an agreement covering 12 core and 13 additional points. Under the accord, both sides agreed to constitute a high-level committee to examine the issue of refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly.
The unrest also triggered political upheaval in the region. The Pakistan Peoples Party subsequently
moved a no-confidence resolution against then prime minister Chaudhry Anwarul Haq, with the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz joining the effort. Haq, who had been elected in April 2023 with 48 votes, chose to face the vote rather than resign.
On Nov 17, Raja Faisal Mumtaz Rathore
secured 36 votes in the election and became the 16th prime minister of AJK.
With elections now approaching and the refugee seat issue still unresolved, the AJK government
convened an All Parties Conference (APC) in Muzaffarabad to build consensus. Almost every major party attended — except PTI and the JAAC, who boycotted it.
The JAAC's position is that the government had already rejected its written proposals submitted on May 30, so attending would be futile. It had proposed either keeping symbolic refugee representation until the Kashmir dispute is permanently resolved, or replacing the 12 assembly seats with 4 seats in the AJK Council — a body chaired by the prime minister, which it argued would better preserve the political dimension of the Kashmir cause.
The APC rejected any changes outside the constitutional and legislative framework, saying only the elected assembly could alter refugee seat arrangements. The JAAC called the resolution "a page and a half of utterly trivial lines" and accused participants of gathering to serve their own interests rather than the public's.
UK Racism against Muslims and Brown people: Why are blacks in the UK given a free pass by white english racists? (8 Viewers)