AJK Supreme Court Upholds Government’s Position on Refugee Seats

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court on Sunday delivered a landmark opinion in favour of the government, affirming that the 12 refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly are constitutionally protected and cannot be removed or modified through any administrative or extra-constitutional action.

The presidential reference at the heart of the case was filed by the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir under Article 46-A of the Interim Constitution of 1974, on the government’s advice, seeking the apex court’s legal opinion on constitutional questions related to the refugee seat issue and other connected matters.

In its formal opinion, the Supreme Court held that the 12 refugee seats are anchored in Article 22 of the Constitution and trace their legal roots to legislative arrangements established in 1960, 1964, and 1970. The court further noted their connection to the interim constitutional framework, the 1974 Constitution, and the 1975 Act.

“Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the twelve refugee seats incorporated in Article 22(1)(a)(ii) and (ii) of the Constitution can be altered, reduced, or abolished only through a constitutional amendment enacted strictly in accordance with Article 33,” the court’s statement read — a copy of which is available with Geo News.

The court issued a firm warning against attempts to force constitutional change through pressure tactics, stating: “Any demand seeking abolition of any constitutional provision through coercion, brute force, threats of mass public obstruction, or other extra-constitutional means is devoid of constitutional sanction, legally unenforceable, and wholly incompatible with the principles of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law embodied in Articles 33 and 57 of the Constitution.”

The court also endorsed the government’s approach of deferring the remaining constitutional questions to the elected Legislative Assembly, reiterating that constitutional amendments can only proceed through public mandate, parliamentary deliberation, and the prescribed legal procedure.

Interpreting Articles 22(3) and 22(4), the court clarified the powers and term of the Legislative Assembly and stressed that elections must be held within the constitutional timeframe, adding that political disputes or protest movements cannot serve as grounds to postpone the electoral process.

The court underscored that the state bears full constitutional responsibility for conducting elections and maintaining law and order, and is bound to safeguard the continuity of democratic and constitutional governance. It further noted that the decisive force in Azad Kashmir is not street agitation but the supremacy of the Constitution, while acknowledging that peaceful protest remains a constitutional right — though actions that disrupt normal life do not enjoy constitutional cover.

The opinion was issued amid an ongoing protest campaign demanding the abolition of the 12 seats reserved for refugees from Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) who migrated to Pakistan after 1947. Earlier this week, an All Parties Conference (APC) convened at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat in Muzaffarabad firmly rejected these demands, reaffirming that constitutional reforms fall exclusively within the mandate of elected representatives. The AJK Legislative Assembly had also passed a resolution just a day earlier retaining the 12 refugee seats, with the resolution emphasising that refugee representation is a historical and constitutional reality, and that any necessary reforms could be introduced through the assembly itself.