144 6, article 96 was also regularized and incorporated in the constitution by the same democratic government in 2011. But now Mr. Attorney General wants to highlight an exception by saying that the provision of the repealed article 96 was an act of martial law and thus it should not have any place in a democratic constitution like ours. But he seems to have no answer about retaining and regularizing the martial law provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, articles 6, 42, 47 etc, in the constitution as shown above. In fact, this discussion is a bit tautological yet it demands a clarification. In the first place, I am absolutely in agreement with the learned Attorney General’s submission that a provision added by a martial law government cannot be placed in our hardearned constitution, but a provision which in content and spirit is absolutely in harmony with the scheme of the constitution and was incorporated in the body of the constitution by a democratic government and competent Parliament by way of amendment cannot be