AJK Supreme Court backs govt position, upholds constitutional protection of 12 refugee seats

• President of AJK on advice of government sent reference to AJK SC under Article 46-A of Constitution

• Court rules 12 refugee seats protected under Article 22 of Constitution and can’t modified through administrative or executive measures

• Says any change requires constitutional amendment under Article 33, endorsing government's stance on 12 refugee seats

• Observes elections can’t be delayed by protests or political disputes as constitutional authority rests with institutions, not street pressure

 MUZAFFARABAD: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), in a significant constitutional opinion on a presidential reference, has endorsed the government's stance on refugee representation, ruling that the 12 refugee seats enjoy constitutional protection and cannot be altered without a formal constitutional amendment under Article 33.

The presidential reference was submitted to the Supreme Court by the President of AJK on the advice of the government under Article 46-A of the Constitution, seeking clarity on the legal and constitutional status of refugee seats. In response, the court issued a detailed interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and the framework governing refugee representation.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that the 12 refugee seats are protected under Article 22 of the Constitution and cannot be modified through administrative or executive measures. The court observed that the legal and historical basis of these seats is firmly rooted in the laws of 1960, 1964 and 1970, as well as the interim constitutional arrangements, the 1974 Constitution and the 1975 Act.

The court further ruled that any change in the number, structure or status of refugee seats can only be effected through a constitutional amendment under Article 33, a process requiring public mandate, parliamentary deliberation and full compliance with constitutional procedures.

Underscoring the supremacy of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed that authority in AJK derives from constitutional institutions and legal processes rather than street agitation. It also endorsed the government's position that unresolved constitutional matters fall within the jurisdiction of the elected Legislative Assembly and must be addressed through the democratic process.

The opinion reaffirmed that the holding of elections within the prescribed constitutional timeframe is mandatory under Article 22(4), stressing that protests, political disagreements or other disputes cannot be allowed to impede the electoral process. The court also clarified the scope and interpretation of Articles 22(3) and 22(4), outlining the powers and tenure of the Legislative Assembly.

The Supreme Court further observed that state institutions are constitutionally obligated to ensure the conduct of elections and maintain law and order. While recognising peaceful protest as a constitutional right, it held that blocking roads, exerting pressure on institutions or disrupting normal public life does not enjoy constitutional protection.

The opinion stressed that the exercise of rights by any individual or group cannot come at the expense of the fundamental rights of other citizens. It added that the administration remains duty-bound to preserve public order, uphold constitutional governance and ensure the rule of law at all times.

Legal experts said the ruling has reinforced the constitutional and legal framework governing refugee representation and strengthened the state's authority to act against attempts to obstruct elections or interfere with constitutional institutions. They noted that the court had made it clear that any constitutional change must be pursued through the Legislative Assembly and the ballot box, rather than through pressure tactics or confrontation.