4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Wrong Delivery of Notice Under the rules of service, notice may be delivered to an adult family member if the defendant is unavailable. This is deemed valid through the principle of constructive knowledge, based on the assumption that the defendant would learn of the notice from their family or upon returning home. Yet, several writ petitions have challenged ex parte orders on the ground that family members who received the notice failed to inform the defendant. The Gauhati High Court routinely dismissed such claims, reasoning that notice had been lawfully served. However, this response misinterprets the core argument: defendants did not dispute the fact of service, but rather their lack of actual knowledge of the proceedings. The Court failed to consider whether sufficient cause existed for their non-appearance despite formal compliance with service rules. Illustration 1: Anjum’s husband, being illiterate, failed to understand the gravity of the notice and did not communicate it to her. Justice Manojit Bhuyan dismissed her plea, describing her as negligent for failing to inquire proactively about notices as if she should have expected it was coming.325 Illustration 2: Amiran claimed her husband had not informed her that he had received a notice on her behalf. Justice M.R. Pathak dismissed this, stating, “The issue relating to illegal Bangladeshi migrants entering Assam is very much alive since last more than 30 years...”326 This reasoning assumes that all residents in Assam should proactively expect notices. In neither case did the High Court inquire whether the claim made by the petitioner was factually correct. 106 Special or Exceptional Circumstances The Gauhati High Court has further restricted the sufficient cause standard, requiring litigants to demonstrate that the circumstances preventing their appearance were special or exceptional.327 This has placed an undue burden on defendants. Pinki Das, who gave birth a month after the ex parte order was passed, argued that pregnancy prevented her from attending hearings. Justice A.K. Goswami dismissed her plea, stating, “We are also not inclined to take a view that for giving birth to a child, she was unable to take part in the proceedings.”328 Such an interpretation of sufficient cause overlooks the legitimate constraints faced by defendants, reinforcing the Court’s unrealistic expectations. 325 Anjum Begum @ Nessa v. Union of India WP(C) 6550/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 14 November 2018). Amiran v. Union of India WP(C) 5504/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 16 August 2018). Moslem Mondal (n 188) [103]. 328 Pinki Das v. Union of India WP(C) 5359/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 13 August 2018). 326 327