Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s (AJK) Acting President Chaudhry Latif Akbar on Thursday invoked the advisory jurisdiction of the region’s Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on a set of constitutional questions arising from demands by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) for the abolition of the 12 Legislative Assembly seats reserved for refugees from Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
The three-member full court headed by Chief Justice Raja Saeed Akram, and comprising Justice Raza Ali Khan and Justice Khalid Yousaf Chaudhary, was scheduled to take up the presidential reference, filed under Article 46-A of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, on Friday for appropriate orders.
The court had also issued notice to the advocate general to appear before it.
The reference raised five questions of law and set out 12 factual points in support of the request for the court's advisory opinion.
It was filed amid an ongoing dispute over the future of the reserved seats, with the JAAC demanding their abolition and announcing plans for a general strike and long march to press its demand.
According to the reference, a copy of which was available with Dawn, the controversy centred on the 12 seats reserved under Article 22 of the Constitution for refugees from Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir residing in Pakistan.
Six of the seats are allocated to the refugees from the Kashmir Valley, and the remaining six represent refugees from the Jammu region and Mangla Dam affectees.
The reference argued that the reserved seats provided representation to displaced state subjects and helped preserve the unity and identity of the entire erstwhile princely state pending the exercise of the right to self-determination envisaged in United Nations resolutions.
The first question sought the court's opinion on whether the refugee seats, or any other constitutional provision, could be altered or abolished through any means other than a constitutional amendment passed in accordance with Article 33 of the Constitution.
The second question asked whether the present Legislative Assembly, whose constitutional term was nearing completion ahead of the expected announcement of the election schedule, was competent to undertake such a fundamental constitutional amendment or whether the matter should be left to a newly elected legislature.
Through the third question, the acting president had sought the court's view on whether attempts to secure the abolition of the refugee seats through pressure tactics aimed at bypassing the constitutional amendment process would be compatible with the constitutional framework and the state's position on the Kashmir dispute.
The fourth question concerned the scope of constitutional guarantees relating to freedom of assembly and association and whether those protections extended to movements seeking to obstruct elections or compel constitutional changes outside the procedure prescribed by the Constitution.
The fifth question sought clarification on whether the AJK government was constitutionally bound to proceed with general elections within the prescribed timeframe and what lawful measures might be taken to maintain public order and safeguard the electoral process.
Referring to the JAAC, the reference claimed that of its 38 demands, all except the abolition of the refugee seats had been substantially addressed during negotiations with the governments of Pakistan and AJK.
The document also referred to previous protest movements in 2024 and 2025, stating that they resulted in disruptions to public life and incidents of violence, including the deaths of police personnel.
The acting president requested the Supreme Court to render its opinion on the questions at the earliest, citing the proximity of the general elections and the importance of preserving the constitutional process.
Tariq Naqash
No comments:
Post a Comment