4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process In a case decided by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, an ordinary copy of the voter roll (a public document) was deemed inadmissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision requires that secondary evidence of a public document must be in the form of a certified copy. Placing reliance upon this provision, he refused to consider the voter roll submitted by Borhan Ali, as it was not a certified copy.340 However, this decision overlooked a crucial distinction: objections regarding the form of secondary evidence relate to the mode of proof, which is a curable defect. If raised during the trial, Borhan Ali could have rectified the issue by providing a certified copy. Moreover, settled law permits secondary evidence other than a certified copy in situations where the original and certified copies are lost.341 Had the tribunal adhered to proper procedures, Borhan Ali could have justified why an uncertified copy was submitted. In another case, Aysha Bibi faced procedural obstacles when attempting to submit original versions of her documents. Initially, she submitted the originals with her written statement, but the tribunal returned them after retaining photocopies. Later, she resubmitted the originals with her evidence-onaffidavit, but the tribunal again returned them, requiring their presentation during cross-examination. However, during cross-examination, the tribunal refused to accept the originals, claiming they should have been filed earlier. Instead of addressing this procedural irregularity, Justice K.R. Surana remarked that Aysha Bibi could have filed a petition seeking permission to submit the original documents.342 This response ignored the FT’s failure to properly mark exhibits and unfairly shifted the burden onto Aysha Bibi. Such practices disregard the significant challenges faced by defendants in navigating the legal process, including limited resources and lack of effective legal representation. The absence of a clear stage for marking exhibits in FTs erodes the right to a fair trial. It enables the State to challenge documents unpredictably, leaving defendants ill-equipped to defend themselves. By contrast, a transparent and rule-bound procedure, as followed under ordinary civil law, compels parties to raise objections promptly, ensuring clarity and procedural fairness. 340 Borhan Ali @ Barhan Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 7669/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 8 June 2018). See also Ajupa Khatun @ Ajufa Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 6560/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 23 February 2018); Tapsir Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 7959/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 11 May 2018); Isiran Nessa v. Union of India WP(C) 2460/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 10 April 2018); Sri Bhupen Debnath v. Union of India WP(C) 6351/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 23 April 2018). 341 Marwari Kumhar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri (2000) 6 SCC 735 [10]. 342 Aysha Bibi @ Ayesha Khatun @ Ayesha Bewa WP(C) 4935/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 11 September 2019). 109