An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 275 the provision, unlike other states, the migrants of Indian origin who settled in Assam before March 25, 1971 could qualify either as Indian citizens or for a route to citizenship. The Mahasangha argued that the provision violated the right to life of the citizens in Assam by encouraging the “massive influx of illegal migrants” from Bangladesh. It also argued that the distinct regime compromised their right to culture as guaranteed by the Constitution. A bench consisting of Justice (now Chief Justice) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R.F. Nariman recommended that the issue be referred to a larger constitutional bench for determinationxxii. The Supreme Court has placed itself in a politically divisive position by taking under its command - through secret in-chamber consultations with the NRC Coordinator - the drafting of the NRC to the exclusion of all parties to the matter including the Attorney General of India. Despite the Assam government accepting in court that many who had failed to participate in the claims process were illiterate and poor and hence unable to fill forms, we saw the Court call for no change in the NRC exercise in respect of outreach and education. Thus, through its involvement the Supreme Court by no means played a role to answer to questions of citizens or ease the burden of affected persons in what is now presumed to an era of increasing religious and ethnic polarization. PROVISION OF LEGAL AID The National Human Right Commission Report on detention Centers 2018 states that a majority of persons declared as ‘foreigners’ claimed to be Indian citizen but due to lack of access to proper legal aid have been declared as foreigner through ex-parte decree or they couldn’t produce the documents before the tribunal because of their inability to afford good lawyers. It was recommended that the detainees should be provided with proper legal aid through either the District Legal Service Authority or Non-Governmental Organizations. Many have criticized the practice of ex-partite decrees by the Foreigners Tribunal, demanding that all persons should be afforded the right to be heard.xxiii These concerns arise in the backdrop of many reporting that there is a “widespread perception” that the process faces “difficulties, problems and accusations of bias” xxiv. JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH Volume 6 Issue 4 – ISSN 2455 2437 August 2020 www.thelawbrigade.com Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3665733