Judicial Clarity and Democratic Resilience in AJK

In an unprecedented decision upholding the supremacy of the law in AJK, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir issued a ruling on Sunday declaring that the 12 seats reserved for refugees from Kashmir are constitutionally protected and that nothing will deter the coming Legislative Assembly polls, whether through any kind of force or protest. The decision has proven to be a triumph for the principled stand taken by the AJK government in its negotiations and has revealed the true character of the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), which is fast becoming an instrument of coercion.

The decision was made in response to a presidential reference made to the Supreme Court by the AJK government to interpret certain constitutional aspects regarding the refugee seats and the upcoming election for the 45-seat Legislative Assembly. The refugee seats, reserved for Kashmiris who migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir decades ago, waiting in hope for the resolution of the long-standing dispute, enjoy full constitutional protection. They cannot be abolished or altered through executive action alone. Any change requires a constitutional amendment, a process that belongs exclusively to the elected Legislative Assembly. In one stroke, the court confirmed what Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore had been saying all along: that the government’s hands were constitutionally tied, and that it had not been stonewalling JAAC out of bad faith but out of legal obligation.

This is a point worth dwelling on. The AJK government did not simply dismiss JAAC’s grievances or refuse dialogue. According to Prime Minister Rathore, the government — working alongside Pakistan’s federal government and JAAC representatives — accepted 36 of the group’s 38 demands following negotiations last year. Thirty-six out of thirty-eight. That is not the record of an administration indifferent to the concerns of its people. That is the record of a government that listened, engaged, and delivered on nearly everything within its power. The two remaining demands pertain precisely to constitutional provisions that only the Legislative Assembly has the authority to address. The court has now confirmed this constitutional reality.

And yet, JAAC has chosen confrontation over compromise. Rather than taking its remaining demands to the democratic arena — to the very elections that are now approaching — the group has organized violent protests, blocked roads, intimidated communities, and disrupted public life. The Supreme Court was clear on this point as well: while peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right, actions that block roads, intimidate others, or interfere with constitutional processes do not enjoy legal protection. Democracy has its forums and its methods. JAAC has increasingly abandoned both.

The regional government’s decision to ban JAAC is not an act of political suppression. It is a response to a documented pattern of behavior that has threatened public order and security. The group’s own declarations, including plans to stage yet another large protest next week, signal that its leadership is less interested in resolving the refugee seat issue than in wielding disruption as leverage. This is not activism. It is a form of political extortion, and no democratic government can be expected to negotiate under such conditions indefinitely.

The arrests of JAAC supporters in the days before the Supreme Court ruling have drawn criticism, but they must be understood in context. Law enforcement agencies acted in response to credible threats to public order. The government has a fundamental duty to protect citizens, maintain security, and ensure that constitutional processes, including elections — proceed without interference. When a banned organization announces plans to escalate pressure through street action, the state’s response cannot be passivity.

However, the allegations that one of the leaders of this group had been killed due to firing from the police cannot be overlooked. But according to the version of Kashmir police, they were fired at because some armed men did so when being ordered to halt. Therefore, until an independent investigation takes place to shed light on the matter, these claims should not be considered as the truth. What is clear about the situation is that the police officers were attacked. And this necessitates a responsible reaction on behalf of both sides.

It may be said that the Supreme Court decision is a win for the principle of constitutional democracy. In essence, this verdict shows that the election process in AJK will take place as scheduled; that the representation of refugees’ interests in legislative institutions is legal, and that any constitutional questions should be solved within their framework. This approach of the court fully supports the opinion of the government claiming that the AJK Legislative Assembly can handle these problems.

For the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, including the refugees whose reserved seats are at stake, the course of action is quite simple. Join in the upcoming polls. Vote for their leaders who can raise constitutional issues via legal processes. Forget about the politics of chaos and disruption.

The AJK administration has been patient, has negotiated in good faith, has conceded to almost all the demands of JAAC and has opted for a judicial ruling rather than a unilateral decision. Now, the SC has blessed this stance. Let the rule of law triumph, and let democracy take its course in AJK – without any chaos, hesitation or fear.