By Shahid Khalid Madni
Introduction
The dispute over the twelve refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly has become one of the most important constitutional questions raised by the recent Joint Awami Action Committee movement. The controversy is not simply about the existence of seats for displaced Kashmiris. It concerns the extent to which representatives elected by people living outside AJK should influence the formation of a government whose laws, public services and budget mainly affect residents living within AJK.
The Joint Awami Action Committee, commonly known as JAAC, argues that the present arrangement weakens local democratic control. Major political parties in AJK, however, defend the seats as a constitutional safeguard for displaced State Subjects and as a symbol of the continuing unity of the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. Both positions have legal force, but they address different concerns. JAAC focuses on democratic accountability, while the political parties emphasise constitutional continuity and the rights of displaced communities.
The legal position must therefore be approached carefully. The seats presently exist under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, and cannot be removed by executive order or political agreement alone. At the same time, their constitutional validity does not prevent a debate about whether the present model remains fair, proportionate and suitable for AJK’s democratic development.
The Present Constitutional Arrangement
The AJK Legislative Assembly has forty-five elected members. Thirty-three are elected from constituencies located within AJK, while twelve are elected from refugee constituencies spread across Pakistan. Eight further members are elected on reserved categories, bringing the total membership of the Assembly to fifty-three.
The refugee seats are recognised under Article 22 of the AJK Interim Constitution. Their purpose is linked to the disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir and to the position that displacement should not end the political identity of people who originated from areas now outside AJK’s control. The arrangement also reflects the view that the Line of Control is not a final political boundary and that the people of the wider State remain connected to one unresolved constitutional question.
The difficulty is that the refugee representatives do not perform a merely symbolic role. They possess full legislative power. They may participate in the election of the Prime Minister, support or remove a government, vote on the budget and influence laws governing AJK. The controversy therefore arises from the difference between the historical purpose of the seats and their practical effect on territorial government.
JAAC’s Legal Position
JAAC’s strongest argument is based on territorial accountability. People living inside AJK directly depend on its hospitals, schools, roads, local administration and electricity system. They bear the consequences of decisions taken by the AJK government. Refugee voters living in Pakistan remain politically connected to Kashmir, but their daily lives are generally governed by Pakistan’s federal and provincial institutions. JAAC therefore questions whether they should possess enough electoral influence to decide who governs Muzaffarabad.
This argument does not necessarily deny the rights of refugees. It instead separates two issues: participation in the wider Kashmir dispute and control over the domestic administration of AJK. JAAC can reasonably argue that displaced communities should retain representation in matters concerning Kashmir’s final status, while residents of AJK should have the stronger voice in matters relating to local budgets, public services and government formation.
JAAC also raises concerns about equality of representation. The refugee constituencies are dispersed across Pakistan, and the verification of electoral rolls, constituency sizes and continuing State Subject status may be more difficult than in ordinary territorial constituencies. A system that gives twelve non-territorial members full voting power should therefore be reviewed to ensure that it remains proportionate and transparent.
Another concern is external political influence. Since refugee constituencies are situated outside AJK, Pakistan-based political parties and administrative institutions may have a greater role in their elections. This does not by itself prove manipulation, but the structure creates a legitimate concern that the refugee bloc may be used to influence government formation in AJK.
Importantly, JAAC did not initially rely only on a demand for total abolition. It reportedly proposed alternative arrangements, including symbolic representation or a reduced number of seats in another institution such as the AJK Council. These proposals show that the dispute is capable of constitutional compromise. The core demand is not necessarily the removal of refugee identity from AJK’s political structure, but the prevention of disproportionate influence over territorial governance.
The Position of AJK Political Parties
The main legal argument of the political parties is based on constitutional authority. Article 22 expressly recognises the refugee seats. Government institutions are therefore bound to respect them unless the Constitution is validly amended. The Prime Minister, cabinet or President cannot remove them merely because a protest movement has made such a demand.
Under Article 33, a constitutional amendment must be initiated and approved through the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Political pressure may begin a constitutional debate, but it cannot replace that process. On this point, the political parties are legally correct: the seats cannot be abolished through executive negotiation alone.
The parties also rely on the rights of displaced State Subjects. Refugees are not simply residents of Pakistan seeking influence over another territory. They are communities whose displacement arose from the Kashmir conflict. Their political identity, according to this view, should not disappear because they were forced to live outside AJK. Removing their representation without consultation could therefore be treated as an unfair consequence of displacement.
A further argument is that the seats preserve the unity of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. If AJK were to recognise only people presently living within its territory, it could be argued that the constitutional system was moving towards acceptance of the permanent division of Kashmir. Refugee representation therefore serves a symbolic purpose by maintaining a political connection with communities originating from the wider State.
These arguments are important, but they do not prove that the present arrangement must remain unchanged forever. The United Nations framework does not specifically require twelve seats, their present boundaries or full voting powers on every domestic matter. The number and form of representation are products of AJK’s own constitutional design and can therefore be reconsidered through lawful amendment.
The Role of the AJK Supreme Court
The position attributed to the AJK Supreme Court is best understood as a ruling on constitutional procedure rather than a complete answer to the political debate. The Court’s view was that the seats are constitutionally protected and cannot be abolished through executive action or public pressure. Any alteration must take place through the amendment procedure.
This distinction is important. A court may hold that only the Assembly has authority to change Article 22 without deciding that the existing system is permanently fair or beyond reform. JAAC’s demand is therefore legally weak when presented as a request for immediate executive abolition, but it remains legally relevant when framed as a demand for constitutional reconsideration.
AJK’s Special Status and Pakistan
AJK occupies a distinctive constitutional position. It is not an ordinary province of Pakistan, but it is also not generally recognised as an independent sovereign State. It has its own Interim Constitution, Legislative Assembly, government and superior courts, while Pakistan retains major responsibilities and influence in defence, external affairs and the wider Kashmir dispute.
This arrangement creates a continuing tension between local self-government and Pakistan’s international position. Pakistan may consider refugee representation necessary to maintain the political unity of Jammu and Kashmir. Residents of AJK may view the same mechanism as a means through which Pakistan-based parties and institutions influence their government.
The United Nations framework supports the position that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved and that the people of the former State remain central to any final settlement. It does not, however, prescribe the internal composition of the AJK Legislative Assembly. Refugee representation may therefore be retained in another form without abandoning the wider international position on Kashmir.
Current situation in AJK
The reported deaths of protesters during the JAAC unrest raise the gravest legal question in the crisis: whether security forces used lethal force against persons who were peaceful, unarmed or no longer presented an imminent threat. The exact civilian toll and the circumstances of individual deaths remain contested because authorities, JAAC and witnesses have offered conflicting accounts, while restricted access and the communications blackout made independent verification difficult. Legally, peaceful assembly remains protected, and firearms may not be used merely to disperse a crowd; lethal force must be strictly necessary to protect life from an imminent threat, individually targeted and followed by a prompt, independent and transparent investigation. The prolonged suspension of internet and communication services further affected freedom of expression and access to information, disrupted freelance work and online public services, and reportedly caused difficulties for students seeking examination information or registration, including for medical admission tests. Road closures and restrictions also impeded travel and created reported difficulties in obtaining food, medicines and emergency treatment, although the authorities and protest organisers disputed responsibility for particular blockages. Any indiscriminate use of force, blanket communications shutdown or deliberate obstruction of essential supplies would require the strictest justification under the rights to life, peaceful assembly, expression, movement, health and education, and may amount to unlawful collective punishment where imposed broadly on civilians rather than narrowly against identifiable threats.
A Possible Legal Way Forward
The dispute should not be treated as a choice between keeping all twelve seats unchanged and removing refugee representation completely. A better constitutional approach would attempt to protect the identity and future-status rights of displaced Kashmiris while ensuring that residents of AJK retain meaningful control over their territorial government.
Reform could include an independent audit of refugee electoral rolls, verification of State Subject status and a review of constituency populations. The number of seats could be reduced where necessary, or refugee representation could be transferred to a reformed AJK Council or another representative body. A further possibility would be to distinguish between voting on matters concerning the wider Kashmir dispute and voting on matters limited to AJK’s local budget, public services and government formation.
Any such reform would require careful constitutional drafting. It should not create a category of second-class representatives, nor should it remove displaced communities from political participation. The process should take place under Article 33 and should include open consultation with both refugee communities and territorial residents.
Conclusion
The twelve refugee seats are presently valid under the AJK Interim Constitution and cannot lawfully be abolished through executive action or protest agreement. In this respect, the political parties’ reliance on constitutional procedure is correct. However, constitutional validity does not answer all questions of democratic legitimacy.
JAAC has raised legitimate concerns about territorial accountability, equality of representation and the influence of non-resident constituencies over government formation in AJK. Refugees should not lose their political identity because of displacement, but their rights do not necessarily require the permanent continuation of exactly twelve full Assembly seats in their present form.
The most balanced legal position is therefore neither immediate abolition nor permanent preservation without review. The proper course is a transparent constitutional process under Article 33 that protects displaced Kashmiri representation while strengthening democratic self-government within AJK. The deaths of protesters, prolonged communications restrictions and disruption of access to food, medicine, education and travel further demonstrate that constitutional disputes in AJK cannot be addressed through collective restrictions or disproportionate force, but require independent investigation, accountability and protection of the fundamental rights to life, peaceful assembly, expression and due process.
Sources Consulted
- Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, particularly Articles 22 and 33.
- The reported AJK Supreme Court position concerning the constitutional status of the refugee seats.
- Al Jazeera, “Pakistan’s Kashmir votes: Why the election hinges on 12 disputed seats,” 27 July 2026.
- Research Society of International Law material on the constitutional status of AJK.
