MUZAFFARABAD (Dunya News) – The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), in its constitutional opinion on a presidential reference, has endorsed the government's position on refugee seats, ruling that any alteration to these seats requires a constitutional amendment under Article 33.
The presidential reference was sent to the Supreme Court by the President of AJK on the advice of the government under Article 46-A of the Constitution. In response, the court issued a detailed constitutional interpretation addressing the legal status of refugee representation.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that the 12 refugee seats enjoy constitutional protection under Article 22 and cannot be altered through administrative decisions. The court noted that the legal and historical foundation of these seats is rooted in the laws of 1960, 1964, and 1970, as well as the interim constitutional arrangements, the 1974 Constitution, and the 1975 Act.
The court further ruled that any change to the refugee seats would require a formal constitutional amendment under Article 33, a process that must involve public mandate, parliamentary debate, and adherence to all constitutional procedures.
Emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated that decisive authority in AJK rests not with street protests but with constitutional mechanisms. The court also supported the government's position that remaining constitutional matters should remain within the jurisdiction of the elected Legislative Assembly.
The opinion reaffirmed that timely elections are mandatory under Article 22(4) and that protests or political disputes cannot obstruct the constitutional electoral process. The court also clarified the interpretation of Articles 22(3) and 22(4), outlining the powers and tenure of the Assembly.
The Supreme Court observed that state institutions bear the constitutional responsibility of conducting elections and maintaining law and order. While acknowledging peaceful protest as a constitutional right, the court stated that blocking roads, exerting pressure, or disrupting daily life does not fall within the scope of constitutional protection.
The opinion further stressed that the exercise of rights by any individual or group cannot justify depriving other citizens of their fundamental rights. It added that the administration is obligated to uphold public order, constitutional governance, and the rule of law at all times.
Legal experts said the ruling strengthens the legal basis for action against those attempting to interfere in elections or state institutions. They noted that the court has made it clear that constitutional change must come through the Assembly and the ballot box, not through pressure tactics or confrontation.
Analysts also argued that the decision validates the government's constitutional position on two other outstanding demands and reinforces that constitutional disputes can only be resolved through established legal and parliamentary procedures.
According to experts, the Supreme Court's opinion further reinforces the principles of constitutional supremacy, rule of law, and state stability, and could serve as an important precedent for resolving future constitutional and political disputes in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.