The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has ruled that the 12 seats reserved for refugees in the Legislative Assembly are constitutionally protected and cannot be altered through political agreements, executive orders, or public pressure. According to a detailed advisory opinion, any changes to the composition of the 53-member Assembly must strictly follow the formal amendment procedure established in Article 33 of the AJK Constitution.
The court’s decision clarifies that the amendment process is “exhaustive and exclusive,” meaning no authority other than the legislature can lawfully change constitutional provisions. This ruling arrives amid significant political tension, following the government’s recent decision to declare the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) a proscribed organization.
Why the refugee seats are constitutionally protected
The 12 reserved seats represent Kashmiri refugees who migrated during the conflicts of 1947 and 1965 and are currently settled across Pakistan. The court described these seats as a “constitutional expression of a profound historical and juridical truth” stemming from the displacement of Kashmiris during the 1947 partition.
The legal foundation for these seats is rooted in a long history of electoral arrangements dating back to 1960, with subsequent reforms in 1964 and 1970. The arrangement was eventually solidified through the 13th Amendment. The court noted that this “continuously affirmed constitutional principle” reflects the political status of displaced Kashmiris and is a “deep-rooted constitutional commitment” rather than a temporary measure.
The limits of protest and public agitation
A significant portion of the court’s opinion addressed the legality of using protests to drive political change. While the court affirmed that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, it emphasized that this right is “neither absolute nor unrestricted” and must respect public order.
The court warned that coercive tactics, such as road blockades, forced business closures, and the disruption of supply routes, fall outside of 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,”
the opinion stated.
Furthermore, the court observed that attempts to secure constitutional changes through coercive means are “legally unenforceable” and incompatible with the rule of law. The ruling makes it clear that while the Constitution protects peaceful dissent, it does not protect conduct that undermines public order.
What happens next for AJK elections
The ruling also addressed the mandatory nature of elections. Referencing Article 22(4), the court stated that constitutional timelines for general elections “admit of no exception” and cannot be delayed due to political uncertainty or public agitation.
The AJK Election Commission has already announced that general elections for the Legislative Assembly are scheduled for July 27. The commission stated that preparations are currently underway to ensure the elections are transparent, orderly, and impartial under judicial supervision.
The legal clarification may impact the political landscape in several ways. Because the JAAC had previously demanded the abolition of these 12 seats, the court’s ruling could effectively block their primary legislative goal. This may lead to increased friction between the government and opposition groups, especially as the July 27 election date approaches.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the refugee seats be removed through a political agreement?
No. The court ruled that executive orders and political agreements have no legal effect in changing the Constitution; changes can only be made through the amendment process in Article 33.
When are the next general elections in AJK?
The AJK Election Commission has announced that general elections for the Legislative Assembly will be held on July 27.
What is the court’s stance on road blockades during protests?
The court stated that road blockades and disruptions to supply routes fall outside of constitutional protection and cannot be used to press political demands.
How will this ruling impact the political participation of groups that have recently boycotted government conferences?
