The President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, on the advice of the government, had filed a presidential reference under Article 46A of the Constitution and sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on the issue of refugee seats.
The Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir in its opinion held that the 12 refugee seats have constitutional protection under Article 22, they cannot be changed by administrative decision, the historical basis of the refugee seats is linked to the laws of 1960, 1964 and 1970, the refugee seats are linked to the interim constitutional arrangements, the 1974 Constitution and the 1975 Act, a constitutional amendment under Article 33 is indispensable for changing the refugee seats, the decisive force in Azad Kashmir is not protests on the streets but the supremacy of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, while upholding the government’s decision to entrust the remaining constitutional matters to the elected assembly, said that constitutional amendment is possible only through public mandate, parliamentary debate, constitutional procedure, timely holding of elections under Article 22(4), protests or political conflict cannot be an obstacle in this. The court interpreted Articles 22(3) and 22(4), the powers of the assembly and Explaining the period, he said that the constitutional responsibility of holding elections and maintaining law and order lies with the state. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right, but disruption of normal life does not receive constitutional protection. The exercise of an individual’s rights cannot be a justification for taking away the rights of other citizens. The administration is bound to maintain public peace, constitutional order and the rule of law.
In this regard, constitutional experts say that the judicial opinion has further strengthened the basis for legal action against those who interfere in the elections. The AJK Supreme Court has made it clear that the path to constitutional change is through assembly and vote, not pressure and confrontation.
Constitutional experts say that the government’s stance on the remaining two demands was proven correct that constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means. The judicial opinion has strengthened the state’s stance on protecting constitutional supremacy, rule of law, peace and stability.