Muzaffarabad, June 7, 2026: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Supreme Court on Sunday upheld the constitutional status of the 12 refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly, ruling that they enjoy constitutional protection and cannot be altered, reduced or abolished through administrative action or political pressure.
The landmark opinion was issued in response to a presidential reference filed by the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir under Article 46-A of the Interim Constitution, 1974, on the advice of the AJK government. The reference sought the court’s interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to refugee representation and other connected legal questions.
In its detailed opinion, the apex court held that the 12 reserved refugee seats derive constitutional protection under Article 22 of the Interim Constitution and are rooted in historical legal arrangements dating back to the constitutional and electoral frameworks of 1960, 1964 and 1970. The court noted that the seats are intrinsically linked to the constitutional evolution of Azad Kashmir, including the 1974 Interim Constitution and the 1975 legislative framework.
“Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the twelve refugee seats incorporated in Article 22(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Constitution can be altered, reduced, or abolished only through a constitutional amendment enacted strictly in accordance with Article 33,” the court stated.
The court further declared that any attempt to abolish constitutional provisions through coercion, threats, public obstruction or extra-constitutional means was legally untenable and contrary to the principles of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
“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,” the opinion observed.
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that constitutional amendments fall exclusively within the domain of elected representatives and parliamentary institutions. It endorsed the government’s stance that any future reforms regarding refugee representation must be debated and decided through constitutional mechanisms within the Legislative Assembly.
Interpreting Articles 22(3) and 22(4), the court clarified the tenure and powers of the Legislative Assembly and stressed that elections must be held within the constitutionally prescribed timeframe.
The court ruled that political disagreements, protests or agitation could not be used as grounds to delay elections, emphasizing that the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure continuity of democratic governance.
“The responsibility for conducting elections and maintaining law and order rests with the state, which is constitutionally bound to ensure the continuation of democratic and constitutional processes,” the opinion stated.
In a significant observation, the court underscored that constitutional authority—not street protests—remains the ultimate source of legitimacy in Azad Kashmir.
While recognising peaceful protest as a constitutional right, the court noted that demonstrations disrupting public life, state institutions or constitutional processes do not enjoy legal protection.
The judges further observed that the exercise of one group’s rights cannot come at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others, stressing that the administration is duty-bound to preserve public order, constitutional governance and the rule of law.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of an ongoing political dispute surrounding the 12 seats reserved for refugees from Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) who migrated to Pakistan after 1947.
The issue has become the central demand of recent protest campaigns by activist groups seeking the abolition of the reserved seats, arguing that they influence political outcomes in Azad Kashmir.
However, political and constitutional institutions have increasingly rallied in support of retaining the existing arrangement.
Earlier this week, an All Parties Conference (APC) convened at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat in Muzaffarabad unanimously rejected calls for the abolition of the refugee seats and reaffirmed that constitutional reforms remain the exclusive mandate of elected representatives.
A day before the Supreme Court ruling, the AJK Legislative Assembly also passed a resolution endorsing the continuation of the 12 refugee seats, describing refugee representation as a historical and constitutional reality. The resolution noted that any reforms aimed at addressing electoral concerns could be pursued through parliamentary consensus and legislative procedures.
The Supreme Court’s opinion is expected to strengthen the government’s position ahead of upcoming elections and may significantly shape the ongoing debate over constitutional reforms and political representation in Azad Kashmir.
