Muzaffarabad: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), in its constitutional opinion on a presidential reference, has endorsed the government's position on 12 refugee seats, ruling that any alteration to these seats requires a constitutional amendment under Article 33.
The presidential reference was sent by Acting President Azad Jammu and Kashmir Chaudhry Latif Akbar Khan to AJK Supreme Court on the advice of the government under Article 46-A of the Constitution.
In response, two-member bench of the AJK Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Raja Saeed Akram Khan and comprising Justice Khalid Yousaf Chaudhary issued a detailed constitutional interpretation addressing the legal status of refugee representation.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that 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 foundation of these seats is 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 to the refugee seats would require a formal constitutional amendment under Article 33, a process that must involve public mandate, parliamentary debate, and adherence to all constitutional procedures.
Emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated that decisive authority in AJK rests not with street protests but with constitutional mechanisms. The court also supported the government's position that remaining constitutional matters should remain within the jurisdiction of the elected Legislative Assembly.
The opinion reaffirmed that timely elections are mandatory under Article 22(4) and that protests or political disputes cannot obstruct the constitutional electoral process. The court also clarified the interpretation of Articles 22(3) and 22(4), outlining the powers and tenure of the Assembly.
The Supreme Court observed that state institutions bear the constitutional responsibility of conducting elections and maintaining law and order. While acknowledging peaceful protest as a constitutional right, the court stated that blocking roads, exerting pressure, or disrupting daily life does not fall within the scope of constitutional protection.
The opinion further stressed that the exercise of rights by any individual or group cannot justify depriving other citizens of their fundamental rights. It added that the administration is obligated to uphold public order, constitutional governance, and the rule of law at all times.
Legal experts said the ruling strengthens the legal basis for action against those attempting to interfere in elections or state institutions. They noted that the court has made it clear that constitutional change must come through the Assembly and the ballot box, not through pressure tactics or confrontation.
According to the opinion, the 12 seats reserved for refugees derive their existence directly from Article 22(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Constitution. They are not created by an ordinary statute, a rule, a notification, or an executive arrangement. Their source is the Constitution itself. It necessarily follows that the abolition, reduction, suspension, or alteration of those seats would require a corresponding amendment of Article 22. Since Article 22 forms part of the constitutional text, no authority other than the constituent authority acting under Article 33 can lawfully modify it. Consequently, the refugee seats cannot be abolished, curtailed, or rendered ineffective through measures, resolutions, political executive action, administrative understandings, public demands, or subordinate legislation. Article 57 reinforces this conclusion.
By declaring the Constitution to be the supreme law, Article 57 establishes the principle that all institutions, authorities, and citizens are subordinate to the Constitution and bound by its commands. Constitutional supremacy necessarily means that constitutional provisions remain operative and enforceable until they are altered through the mechanism prescribed by the Constitution itself. No individual, group, association, political movement, or public body possesses authority to suspend the operation of a constitutional provision merely because it disagrees with its contents or considers it undesirable.
Persuade the Legislature to initiate a constitutional amendment. However, no person or organisation possesses a constitutional or legal right to secure such change through coercion, threats of violence, disruption of governmental functions, obstruction of public highways, interference with elections, or paralysis of the constitutional machinery of the State. 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.
No other method is constitutionally recognised. 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 embodied in Articles 33 and 57 of the Constitution.