Court says constitutional amendments must follow Article 33 and rejects changes through protests or pressure
An aerial view from a Pakistani military helicopter shows Muzaffarabad, AJK. PHOTO: REUTERS
The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) High Court on Sunday ruled that the 12 seats reserved for refugees in the Legislative Assembly are constitutionally protected and cannot be changed through administrative measures, political agreements or public pressure, according to a detailed advisory opinion issued on a presidential reference.
The 53-member AJK Legislative Assembly includes 12 seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees who migrated from Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir during the 1947 and 1965 conflicts and are now settled across Pakistan.
Six seats represent refugees from the Jammu division, estimated at around 434,000 people, while six represent refugees from the Kashmir Valley, whose population is estimated at around 30,000 people.
The issue of refugee representation has long been a key demand of the now-banned Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), which led a series of protests last year that turned violent and resulted in several deaths.
In its opinion, the court reaffirmed that refugee seats are guaranteed under Article 22 of the AJK Constitution and have their roots in a long legislative history dating back to the electoral agreements introduced in 1960 and the subsequent constitutional reforms of 1964 and 1970.
The court described the seats as a “constitutional expression of a profound historical and legal truth” arising from the displacement of Kashmiris following the 1947 partition and the subsequent conflict. He noted that the agreement was further strengthened through successive legal instruments before being explicitly incorporated into the Constitution through the 13th Amendment.
Emphasizing constitutional supremacy, the court held that any change in the composition of the Assembly can only be made through the amendment procedure laid down in Article 33.
“The provisions of the Constitution may be amended in accordance with Article 33,” the opinion said, adding that the amendment process is “exhaustive and exclusive” and that no authority other than the legislature can legally alter the constitutional provisions.
The court said that executive orders, political agreements and public agitation have no legal effect in changing the Constitution, and emphasized that constitutional change must occur through “a public mandate, a parliamentary debate and a constitutional procedure.”
A significant portion of the opinion addressed the use of protests and blockades to press political demands. While affirming that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, the court said the right “is neither absolute nor unrestricted” and must be exercised in a manner compatible with public order and the rights of others.
The court warned that road blockades, forced business closures and disruptions to supply routes fall outside constitutional protection. “The exercise of a fundamental right cannot be permitted in a manner that substantially harms or destroys the fundamental rights guaranteed to others,” he stated.
He further noted that attempts to achieve constitutional change through coercive means are “legally unenforceable” and incompatible with the rule of law. “The Constitution protects peaceful dissent; it does not protect conduct that undermines public order,” the ruling adds.
The court also underlined the constitutional requirement of holding timely elections, referring to Article 22(4), which requires general elections to be held within the prescribed period.
Describing the obligation as mandatory and non-negotiable, the court said constitutional deadlines “admit of no exception” and cannot be delayed due to political uncertainty or public unrest.
It tasked the Electoral Commission and the relevant executive authorities to ensure that free, fair and transparent elections were held within the constitutionally established time frame, while maintaining the necessary conditions for voting.
Tracing the historical evolution of refugee representation, the court noted that refugee seats have existed in various forms since 1960 and have been consistently maintained through successive constitutional and legal frameworks.
He described the agreement as a “continuously affirmed constitutional principle” that reflects the political status of displaced Kashmiris and said its uninterrupted continuation demonstrates that refugee representation is a “deep-rooted constitutional commitment” rather than a temporary administrative measure.
The court reiterated that its opinion is advisory in nature and does not create enforceable orders between the parties. He said the purpose of the reference was to assist constitutional authorities rather than resolve a dispute in the conventional sense.
The ruling comes two days after the AJK government declared JAAC a proscribed organisation, accusing it of being involved in terrorism, promoting hatred and creating anarchy ahead of the group’s planned June 9 protest.
The move also came hours after the AJK Election Commission announced that general elections for the Legislative Assembly will be held on July 27. The commission said preparations were being made to ensure transparent, orderly and fair elections under judicial supervision.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) criticized the government’s decision to ban JAAC.
“If JAAC was truly a terrorist organization, why did the government spend months negotiating with it, signing agreements, implementing its demands, holding meetings with its leaders and treating it as a legitimate stakeholder until yesterday?” the party said in a statement.
The 12 seats
The issue of refugee representation has long been a key demand of the JAAC, which led a series of protests last year that turned violent and resulted in the deaths of several people.
The region witnessed one of its most turbulent periods in October 2025, when protests led by the JAAC broke out over demands for constitutional and governance reforms. At least nine people, including three police officers, died during the riots.
The JAAC, which organized the protests and strike, had put forward a wide-ranging charter of demands, including an end to the privileges enjoyed by the ruling elite, the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for refugees, and the elimination of the quota system.
Two days after the violence, the government and the JAAC reached an agreement covering 12 basic and 13 additional points. Under the agreement, both sides agreed to constitute a high-level committee to examine the issue of refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly.
The unrest also sparked political unrest in the region. The Pakistan People’s Party subsequently moved a no-confidence resolution against then-Prime Minister Chaudhry Anwarul Haq, and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz joined the effort. Haq, who had been elected in April 2023 with 48 votes, preferred to face the vote rather than resign.
On 17 November, Raja Faisal Mumtaz Rathore secured 36 votes in the elections and became the 16th Prime Minister of AJK.
With elections approaching and the issue of refugee seats still unresolved, the AJK government called an All Parties Conference (APC) in Muzaffarabad to build consensus. Almost all major parties attended, except the PTI and JAAC, which boycotted it.
The JAAC’s position is that the government had already rejected its written proposals submitted on May 30, so attending would be futile. He had proposed maintaining symbolic representation of refugees until the Kashmir dispute is permanently resolved, or replacing the 12 assembly seats with 4 seats in the AJK Council, a body chaired by the prime minister, which he claimed would better preserve the political dimension of the Kashmir cause.
The APC rejected any changes outside the constitutional and legislative framework, saying only the elected assembly could alter the seating arrangement for refugees. The JAAC called the resolution “a page and a half of absolutely trivial lines” and accused participants of coming together to serve their own interests and not those of the public.
