11 Killed in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir as Authorities Launch Crackdown on Protest Leaders

Recent clashes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, resulting in 11 fatalities and a subsequent crackdown on protest leaders, highlight critical legal challenges concerning fundamental human rights. This article examines the legal framework governing freedom of assembly, expression, and the use of force by security agencies in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Pakistan. It delves into the interplay between domestic laws, such as the AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and international human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a signatory. The analysis focuses on the legality of restricting protests, the proportionality of force used, and the implications of detaining protest leaders under public order and anti-terrorism legislation. The article aims to provide legal professionals with an understanding of the complex human rights landscape in the region and the legal principles at stake amidst such state actions.

The tragic events of June 10, 2026, in Rawalakot, Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where at least 11 individuals lost their lives during clashes between security forces and protesters, have once again brought to the fore the precarious state of human rights in the disputed territory. The ensuing crackdown on opposition leaders, including the proscription of civil society groups, signals an escalating suppression of dissent. This development raises profound legal questions regarding the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and the permissible limits of state power in maintaining public order.

This article aims to dissect the legal implications of these actions for practising attorneys and legal professionals. It will explore the domestic legal framework in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, juxtaposed with Pakistan's international human rights obligations. The core thesis is that while states possess inherent powers to maintain public order, these powers are circumscribed by constitutional guarantees and international human rights law, particularly concerning the use of force and the right to protest. The recent events underscore a concerning pattern of employing broad legislative instruments to curtail fundamental freedoms, demanding rigorous legal scrutiny.

The crackdown, involving mass arrests and the designation of protest organizations as proscribed entities, necessitates an examination of the legal justifications invoked by authorities and their compatibility with established human rights standards. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for legal professionals engaging with issues of civil liberties, state accountability, and international law in conflict-affected or politically sensitive regions.

Pakistan-administered Kashmir, officially known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), operates under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. This Act establishes a parliamentary framework for self-governance but remains significantly influenced by the Government of Pakistan. Under international law, AJK is considered a “local authority” rather than a sovereign state or a province of Pakistan, as per United Nations resolutions. The AJK Interim Constitution, similar to Pakistan's 1973 Constitution, includes provisions for fundamental rights, such as the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.

Pakistan is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), having ratified it in 2010. Article 21 of the ICCPR explicitly recognizes the right of peaceful assembly, stipulating that restrictions on this right must be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society for specific, legitimate purposes, such as national security, public safety, public order, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Domestically, however, this right has often been curtailed through various legislative instruments. Laws such as the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance, 1960, and Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, have historically been used to impose restrictions on public gatherings and facilitate preventive detentions.

Furthermore, the legal landscape has seen recent changes, including the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act 2024, applicable to the Islamabad Capital Territory, which expands the powers of authorities to restrict assemblies and increases penalties for non-compliance. The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, has also been amended to restore preventive detention powers for security agencies, allowing for detention of individuals for up to three months based on “reasonable suspicion” or “credible information.” These laws provide the backdrop against which the recent crackdown in Rawalakot must be legally assessed.

The recent events in Rawalakot, including the deaths of protesters and the subsequent crackdown, raise significant concerns under both domestic and international human rights law. The right to peaceful assembly, enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Article 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, as well as Article 21 of the ICCPR, is not absolute. However, any restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim. The blanket bans on assemblies, the use of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and the broad powers under the MPO Ordinance, 1960, and the new Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act 2024, are frequently criticized for being overly broad and disproportionate, thus infringing upon the essence of the right to protest.

The use of force by security forces resulting in 11 deaths warrants a thorough investigation into its necessity and proportionality. International standards, particularly the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, mandate that law enforcement officials should, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to force. Force and firearms may only be used if other means are ineffective, and intentional lethal use of firearms is permissible only when strictly unavoidable to protect life. The high casualty count suggests a potential failure to adhere to these principles, indicating a possible violation of the right to life and physical integrity.

The detention of protest leaders and the designation of the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JKJAAC) as a “proscribed organization” under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014, raise questions of arbitrary detention and freedom of association. While counter-terrorism legislation can restrict freedoms, such measures must be precise, non-discriminatory, and subject to judicial oversight. The MPO Ordinance, 1960, allows for preventive detention without trial for up to three months based on vague criteria like a “threat to public order,” which has been criticized for its potential for misuse. Similarly, recent amendments to Pakistan's Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, restoring preventive detention powers for up to three months based on “reasonable suspicion,” have been flagged by civil society as risking arbitrary detention and eroding due process.

Furthermore, the historical application of laws like Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (sedition) against dissent, despite its recent annulment by the Lahore High Court as unconstitutional, highlights a pattern of using legal instruments to suppress political opposition. Although the sedition law has been struck down, other provisions, including those under the Anti-Terrorism Act, are increasingly being used to prosecute protest leaders on charges that may be politically motivated, as seen in cases where anti-terrorism courts have sentenced individuals in absentia. This practice undermines the right to a fair trial and due process, which are fundamental tenets of international human rights law and Pakistan's constitutional framework.

The disputed nature of Pakistan-administered Kashmir does not diminish the applicability of international human rights law. Pakistan, as the administering power, has obligations to ensure that human rights are respected and protected within the territory under its effective control. The consistent pattern of crackdowns on protests and the use of restrictive laws against activists in AJK, as documented by human rights organizations, indicate a systemic challenge to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in the region.

The recent violence and subsequent crackdown in Pakistan-administered Kashmir represent a serious erosion of fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and protection from arbitrary detention. The reliance on broad public order and anti-terrorism legislation to quell dissent and detain protest leaders, coupled with the deadly use of force, raises grave concerns about adherence to both domestic constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations under the ICCPR.

Practising attorneys and legal professionals should closely monitor developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, advocating for accountability for human rights violations and challenging the misuse of legal frameworks to suppress legitimate protest. It is imperative to emphasize the principles of necessity and proportionality in the use of force and the strict adherence to due process and fair trial standards for all detainees. International bodies and human rights organizations must continue to press for transparency, independent investigations into the deaths and detentions, and reforms to ensure that domestic laws align with international human rights standards, fostering an environment where civil liberties can be exercised without fear of reprisal.