THE Delimitation of Constituencies Bill, 2026, introduced by the Indian government has heightened regional tensions by proposing changes to the electoral structure of Jammu and Kashmir while controversially extending its scope to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), a territory outside India’s control. The bill allows the Election Commission of India to carry out constituency delimitation in these areas under the condition that they come within Indian administration, while simultaneously reserving 24 legislative seats for them and keeping those seats permanently vacant. This creates a symbolic legal framework that incorporates AJK into India’s political system without actual governance. Supporters describe it as reaffirming India’s constitutional claims, while it is actually a unilateral assertion of sovereignty rather than a genuine democratic initiative.

The bill is also seen as part of a broader political trajectory following the 2019 revocation of Article 370, which removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and restructured it into a Union Territory. By formally fixing the assembly’s total strength at 114 seats, including 24 unfilled ones representing AJK, the legislation embeds this territorial claim into the constitutional structure.

Reactions have been strongly negative in Kashmir, where many dismiss the move as impractical and symbolic, citing the lack of any mechanism to conduct elections across the heavily militarised Line of Control. Within India, the proposal has triggered political debate, with opposition parties and legal experts questioning its constitutional validity, and warning that legislating for a territory well outside India’s jurisdiction is in conflict with international law.

Besides, the international human rights community has also weighed in, expressing deep concern over the potential for such a piece of legislation to further destabilise an already hyper-volatile region. While major organisations, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have yet to issue their final reports, their early statements have focused on the violation of democratic principles inherent in the concept of ‘vacant representation’.

By reserving seats for a population that cannot vote, India is creating a new category of disenfranchisement. It is asserting a right to represent people who have not asked to be represented, under a constitution they do not recognise, by a government they reject. This is the antithesis of self-determination, which is a principle enshrined in numerous United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.

Furthermore, the specific political dynamics within AJK have rendered the Indian government’s move an exercise in self-defeating propaganda. The AJK government has rejected the Indian delimitation bill as a nullity. All major political parties across the spectrum in AJK have passed unanimous resolutions condemning the legislation. The response from within the occupied Jammu and Kashmir has been one of deep political alienation.

As such, mainstream Kashmiri political leaders have used the legislative debate to highlight the hypocrisy of the central government. The Indian government claims to be concerned about the political representation of a population it does not control, while simultaneously ignoring the legitimate grievances of the population it has occupied for decades.

By attempting to legislate over a terri-tory it does not control and a people who have consistently rejected its claims, India is not only violating international law and UN resolutions, but also creating a constitutional and political fiction that can only lead to further instability.

Abdul Basit Alvi
Muzaffarabad

Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2026