The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has upheld the constitutional status of the region's 12 refugee seats, ruling that any changes can only be made through a formal constitutional amendment process.
The court's opinion on Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2026 has reinforced the government's stance on the issue, emphasizing that constitutional matters must be resolved through legal and parliamentary procedures rather than political pressure or street protests.
Court issues opinion on presidential reference
The reference was filed by the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir under Article 46-A of the Constitution on the advice of the government, seeking constitutional clarification regarding refugee seats and related matters.
In its detailed opinion, the AJK Supreme Court said 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 foundations of these seats stem from the laws of 1960, 1964 and 1970, as well as interim constitutional arrangements, the 1974 Constitution and the 1975 Act.
According to the court, any modification to the refugee seats framework requires a constitutional amendment under Article 33.
The opinion stated that such changes must pass through the established constitutional process, including public mandate, parliamentary debate and legislative approval.
The court observed that constitutional reforms cannot be achieved through protests or political pressure campaigns.
The Supreme Court stressed that the supremacy of the Constitution remains the decisive authority in Azad Kashmir.
It endorsed the government's position that unresolved constitutional matters should remain within the jurisdiction of the elected Legislative Assembly.
The court further stated that constitutional change must emerge from democratic institutions rather than confrontation or pressure tactics.
Elections must be held on time
Interpreting Articles 22(3) and 22(4), the court clarified the powers and tenure of the Assembly and reaffirmed that elections must be conducted within the constitutional timeframe.
The opinion stated that protests, political disputes or other disagreements cannot be used as grounds to delay the electoral process.
According to the court, the responsibility for holding elections and maintaining law and order rests with state institutions.
Right to protest has constitutional limits
While recognising peaceful protest as a constitutional right, the court drew a distinction between lawful demonstrations and actions that disrupt public life.
The opinion said road blockades, coercive tactics and interference with normal civic activities do not fall under constitutional protection.
It also observed that the exercise of rights by one individual or group cannot justify the violation of the rights of other citizens.
The administration, the court added, is obligated to preserve public peace, constitutional order and the rule of law.
Legal experts and analysts say the opinion strengthens the constitutional basis for action against those who interfere with elections or state institutions.
According to analysts, the ruling makes it clear that constitutional disputes must be settled through assemblies, legislation and voting rather than pressure politics.
They also argue that the opinion reinforces the principles of constitutional supremacy, rule of law and political stability in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
