4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process If the Government were compelled to declare its stance on public documents in writing, it would mitigate the risk of such surprises. Defendants would have a clearer understanding of the Government’s objections, enabling them to prepare an adequate defence. Furthermore, requiring the Government to state its objections in writing would impose a degree of accountability, compelling them to provide at least a minimal rationale for their challenges. At present, the Government often avoids supplying any justification for its objections, further exacerbating the procedural imbalance. Incorporating an admission and denial stage would enhance procedural fairness by ensuring transparency and reducing the scope for ambush tactics. It would align the FT procedures with the broader principles of fair trial rights enshrined in Indian law. Moreover, this reform would ensure that challenges to documents, particularly public records, are raised in a timely and justified manner, safeguarding the defendants’ ability to adequately respond. 4.2.7 Marking Documents as Exhibits: Admissibility Stage Under ordinary civil procedure, after filing the written statement, original or certified copies of attached documents must be submitted to form part of the judicial record.335 Judges then mark these as exhibits, signalling their admission into evidence pending proof. At this stage, the opposing party may object to a document’s admissibility.336 Objections fall into two categories: ● Ab initio inadmissibility: where the document is inherently inadmissible under the law. ● Mode of proof: where there are irregularities in how the document was proved (e.g., presenting 108 an uncertified copy when certification is required).337 This distinction matters because objections regarding the mode of proof must be raised when the document is marked as an exhibit. If not, the right to object is waived, as such defects are curable. The rule of fair play ensures that timely objections allow the submitting party a chance to remedy deficiencies, such as by providing alternate proof.338 Once waived, the document is treated as admissible evidence.339 In the FTs, this process is routinely ignored. Lawyers report that members raise objections late in the proceedings, with documents being disregarded even when no timely objection was made. This undermines procedural fairness and departs from principles applied in ordinary courts. The Gauhati High Court has mostly endorsed this deviation—explicitly or implicitly—by failing to intervene or affirming tribunal orders, thereby lending legitimacy to these flawed practices. 335 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XIII Rule 4. Sudir Engineering Co. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd. 1995 SCC OnLine Del 251 [14], [15]. 337 RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami (2003) 8 SCC 752 [20]. 338 Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji 1943 SCC OnLine PC 2 [19]; Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1 [13]-[15]; Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1017 [76]. 339 Dayamathi Bhai v. K.M Shaffi (2004) 7 SCC 107 [13], [15]. 336