ISLAMABAD  -  Supreme Court judge Justice Musarrat Hilali has said that the military law clashes with the Constitution. She gave remarks during hearing of the appeals lodged at the Supreme Court against the trials of civil-ians in military courts on Friday.

The Ministry of Defence’s attorney, Khawaja Haris, finished his arguments during the session. At the next hearing on April 28, the attorney general will make his case. During the proceedings, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned the criteria for selecting cases for military trials, asking: “How was the pick-and-choose approach applied in these cases?” Haris responded that it was not a matter of pick-and-choose, adding, “The crime is viewed according to its nature.” He further said that cases are sent to either anti-terrorism courts or military courts based on the nature of the offence. Justice Hilali asked whether civilians even fall under the purview of military courts, saying that their focus should only be on disciplining members of the forces. “Where it is clear that it [trial] is only for members, what hap-pens there?” she inquired. Justice Rizvi further questioned the relevance of military law to civilians at-tacking army installations. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan added that the Army Act is specifically for armed forces personnel, and if civilians were to be included, it would need to be explicitly stated. Jus-tice Afghan also noted that while many aspects of the previous two laws were retained in the 1973 Constitution. He said several things were incorporated into the 1973 Constitution during the martial law periods. Following that, he said, amendments were made to revert the Constitution to its original form after martial law periods, however, the provisions related to the Army Act were not altered in this as well. Haris said court martial was acknowledged constitutionally, and it was something that was implemented in not just war times but during peace times as well.