4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process The terminology of sufficient cause has been borrowed from the CPC.316 While interpreting this standard, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the defendant’s conduct should be measured against the reasonable standard of a cautious person. This standard is fulfilled if the defendant made sincere efforts to be present for the hearing within the facts and circumstances of their case.317 If the defendant approaches the court within the statutory time frame, discretion should be exercised in their favour, as long as the absence was not mala fide or intentional.318 Additionally, ex parte orders can be set aside even if the defendant was negligent, provided they monetarily compensate the other side.319 The Gauhati High Court, however, has modified the sufficient cause standard, replacing the settled test of whether the defendant undertook sincere efforts.320 Instead, the test is whether the circumstances were beyond the defendant’s control. This change has catalysed an unfairly burdensome interpretation of sufficient cause. It deems a situation to be within the defendant’s control if it was possible to take any additional steps, with little realistic assessment of the reasonableness of these expectations. These assumptions often disregard the socio-economic realities of the defendants’ lives. This is illustrated below through examples of writ petititons filed to set aside ex parte orders, highlighting the circumstances that prevented defendants from appearing. Inadequate Legal Representation Writ petitions commonly assert the ground that the defendant was unable to appear during the 104 proceedings because their lawyer had miscommunicated the date of the hearing or misled them into believing their presence was not required.321 Out of 63 writ petitions filed on this ground, 66.7% were rejected. Illustration 1: In 1990, Abdul Hamid entrusted his lawyer with handling his case. The lawyer assured him that everything would be taken care of and his presence was unnecessary. Twenty-six years later, at a Fair Price Shop, Abdul Hamid discovered that he had been declared a foreigner through an ex parte order passed in 2000. He promptly filed a writ petititon, claiming he had no knowledge of the order until that moment.322 However, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan denied him another opportunity, reasoning that Hamid should have followed up with his lawyer. The judge noted that it was his “duty to discharge the burden under s.9.” 316 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order IX rule 13. Parimal v. Veena (2011) 3 SCC 545 [13], [16]; GP Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 [7]. 318 GP Srivastava (n 317) [7]. 319 ibid. 320 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [92]. 321 Md. Abdul Hamid @ Abdul Hamid and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 7475/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 15 December 2016); Kutub Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 7169/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 29 November 2016); Amina Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 5672/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 24 August 2018); Aijuddin v. Union of India WP(C) 4343/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 4 October 2016). 322 Md. Abdul Hamid (n 321). 317