MUZAFFARABAD: A London-based Kas­hmiri rights organisation holding special consultative status with the United Nations on Thursday condemned the Indian government’s recent confiscation of properties belonging to pro-freedom Kashmiri leaders and activists, saying New Delhi lacked the legal authority to seize assets in the internationally-recognised disputed territory and had converted its original protective mandate into a punitive regime.

“The application of domestic criminal laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), to suppress dissent and confiscate or attach properties of dissenting voices in occupied Kashmir is inconsistent with international obligations and the terms under which Indian forces were admitted into the territory in 1947,” said Dr Syed Nazir Gilani, president of the Jammu Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR).

In a statement, Dr Gilani argued that India’s military presence in occupied Jammu and Kashmir was conditional and temporary, confined to defence and the protection of life, property and civil rights pending a final determination of the region’s status.

He said the use of coercive domestic laws to silence political dissent and appropriate assets violated these commitments and breached obligations under the UN Charter, which, he maintained, took precedence over conflicting domestic legislation.

Says coercive domestic laws violate UN Charter obligations

Dr Gilani’s remarks came amid growing concern over property seizures in the occupied region, which critics and rights groups have widely condemned. According to local Kashmiri and Indian media reports, the administration has in recent years attached ancestral land in Pulwama and seized dozens of homes and other assets across the region under the pretext of security concerns or alleged encroachments.

In the latest such move, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) ordered the attachment of land in Budgam district belonging to US-based Kashmiri leader Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, citing alleged involvement in activities proscribed under the UAPA.

Dr Gilani said India’s decision to refer the Kashmir dispute to the UN Security Council under Article 35 of the UN Charter had internationalised the issue, removing it from India’s exclusive domestic jurisdiction.

He added that subsequent UN resolutions had placed India in the role of an interim administrator bound by a UN-supervised process, including the obligation not to alter the territory’s status or prejudice the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination.

According to him, the use of IPC provisions relating to speech and association, as well as UAPA clauses permitting property attachment, violated India’s duty to protect property, exceeded the limits of a temporary mandate and contravened the UN Charter, under which international obligations override conflicting domestic laws.

“The confiscation of property belonging to dissenting voices amounts to a blatant violation of solemn commitments made to the government of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and the United Nations, and undermines the UN framework governing the dispute,” he said.

Dr Gilani further pointed out that UN Security Council Resolution 91 had safeguarded the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, adding that India’s failure to adhere to the terms of its protective role in Jammu and Kashmir had incurred liabilities, including the loss of an entire generation.

He said the JKCHR would consult legal experts and consider pursuing cases seeking compensation and restitution for what he termed the wrongs committed against the people of Kashmir.

He also urged the governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir to fulfil their responsibilities in accordance with UN Com­mission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions and the UN framework.

Published in Dawn, December 26th, 2025