Web Desk: The Supreme Court of Azaad Jammu and Kashmir has ruled that any change to the region’s refugee seats must be made through a constitutional amendment approved by the legislature, reaffirming the government’s position in a long-running political dispute.
In a detailed constitutional opinion, the court said constitutional demands cannot be imposed through protests, pressure campaigns or confrontational tactics, emphasizing that only elected institutions have the authority to amend constitutional arrangements.
The ruling is expected to influence ongoing debates surrounding refugee representation and could clear the way for elections to proceed without further constitutional uncertainty.
The court stated that the 12 refugee seats in the Azaad Kashmir Legislative Assembly are protected under Article 22 of the constitution and cannot be altered through administrative orders or executive decisions.
According to the opinion, any modification to the number, status or structure of these seats would require a formal constitutional amendment under Article 33.
The judges said such authority rests exclusively with the legislature and must be exercised through parliamentary debate, public representation and the constitutional process.
“Constitutional changes must follow constitutional procedures,” the court said, underscoring the role of elected representatives in determining matters of legislative representation.
The ruling reinforces the government’s argument that unresolved constitutional matters should be decided by elected lawmakers rather than through administrative action.
The court said constitutional questions must ultimately be settled through democratic institutions, adding that public representatives not pressure groups hold the mandate to make decisions affecting the constitutional framework.
As a result, the opinion rejects calls for administrative intervention to resolve the refugee seats issue before legislative consideration.
While reaffirming citizens’ right to peaceful protest, the court also drew a distinction between lawful demonstrations and actions that interfere with public life.
The judges noted that peaceful assembly remains a protected constitutional right. However, they said road blockades, forced shutdowns, intimidation and disruptions to normal civic activity do not fall within the scope of constitutional protection.
Furthermore, the court stressed that political disagreements or protest movements cannot be used as grounds to delay elections or interfere with constitutional obligations.
Referring to constitutional provisions governing elections, the court said the timely and transparent conduct of polls is a mandatory constitutional requirement.
The opinion emphasised that state institutions carry the responsibility of ensuring peaceful elections, maintaining public order and protecting citizens during the electoral process.
Legal experts said the ruling could strengthen the government’s ability to act against attempts to obstruct elections or interfere with the functioning of state institutions.
The refugee seats issue has remained a source of disagreement between the government and several political and activist groups for years. Critics of the current arrangement had argued for administrative measures to address their concerns before elections, while the government maintained that any change required constitutional approval.
The court’s opinion largely validates that position and reinforces the principle that constitutional reform must proceed through legislative channels.
The decision is likely to bolster the government’s standing ahead of elections, while also reaffirming the supremacy of constitutional institutions over extra-parliamentary pressure.
With the court clarifying the legal framework surrounding refugee seats and election timelines, officials believe the ruling has reduced uncertainty and strengthened the constitutional path forward for resolving outstanding political disputes in Azaad Kashmir.
Read more: Public Action Committee Protest call failed, says AJK opposition leader
