Muzaffarabad: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has upheld the government’s position regarding the issue of migrant seats, stating that any changes to these seats cannot be made through administrative decisions and require a constitutional amendment.
The court issued its opinion in response to a presidential reference filed under Article 46-A of the AJK Constitution, in which the president sought clarification on the legal status of migrant representation seats.
Migrant Seats Have Constitutional Protection
In its detailed opinion, the court observed that the 12 migrant seats are protected under Article 22 and are rooted in historical legal arrangements dating back to 1960, 1964, and 1970 legislation.
The court further noted that these seats are linked to the interim constitutional framework, the 1974 AJK Constitution, and the 1975 Act, making them an integral part of the region’s constitutional structure.
It ruled that any alteration to these seats must be carried out through a constitutional amendment under Article 33, and cannot be changed through executive or administrative orders.
Constitutional Process Must Be Followed
The court emphasized that constitutional changes must follow proper legislative procedures, including:
- Parliamentary debate
- Approval through elected assembly
- Constitutional amendment process
It stressed that political pressure or street protests cannot override constitutional mechanisms.
According to the court, the “decisive authority lies not in street agitation but in constitutional supremacy.”
Election and Governance Framework Clarified
The court also endorsed the government’s stance on delegating remaining constitutional matters to the elected assembly, stating that such authority must be exercised within legal and constitutional boundaries.
It highlighted that under Article 22(4), timely elections are a constitutional requirement and must not be obstructed by political disputes or protests.
Right to Protest vs Public Order
While recognizing peaceful protest as a constitutional right, the court clarified that such rights do not extend to disrupting public order or everyday life.
It stated that:
- No individual’s rights can override the rights of others
- The state is responsible for maintaining law and order
- Public administration must ensure constitutional discipline and peace
Legal Experts Call It a Landmark Opinion
Constitutional experts have described the court’s opinion as significant, stating that it strengthens the legal framework against attempts to influence constitutional processes through pressure or agitation.
They noted that the ruling clearly establishes that constitutional reforms must be achieved through elected institutions and legislative procedures, not street movements.
Government Position Strengthened
According to legal observers, the court’s opinion reinforces the government’s stance that all constitutional issues must be resolved through legal and democratic means.
The decision is being seen as a reinforcement of constitutional supremacy, rule of law, and institutional stability in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
About The Author
