4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process The environment in the FTs is often hostile, particularly for witnesses. If present at all, AGPs adopt irrelevant or aggressive lines of questioning, seemingly intended to intimidate or badger witnesses. Since family members of defendants are not well-versed with the legal know-how of depositions, even a slight deviation in the cross-examination leads to the members drawing adverse inferences against the defendant. This is in derogation to well established norms of evidence,348 according to which a minor deviation cannot lead to judges discarding entire witness testimonies. FT members themselves often adopt an intimidating tone, exacerbating the pressure on witnesses. They also routinely fail to take into consideration the uncontested evidence of witnesses, which otherwise corroborates the evidence adduced by the defendant. If the testimony of a witness is not challenged by the State in cross-examination, or there are no discrepancies found in such, it has to be considered and cannot be set aside.349 Despite the clear irregularities in how cross-examinations are conducted, the Gauhati High Court has not taken meaningful steps to address these practices. Interview with Advocate MI: “In this case, in Barpeta according to me there are three tribunals FT no. 5, 9 and 1 where the government pleader plays their role well, the questions are asked by government pleaders, in other tribunals, the government pleader does not ask anything, the member asks everything. Similarly, in this case too, the government pleader in the end, one or two times during cross examination asked questions, otherwise everything was asked by members himself. The member did the interrogation himself, I could not see the government pleader play his role. From what I know, the member interrogates and argues and, in the end, as a formality, once or twice the govt pleader asks a question otherwise he plays no role.” Interview with AGP: 112 “However on having become an AGP, the nature of my interaction with the member has changed. While I am informed by them regarding cross examinations and arguments for each case, sometimes they have proceeded without me present which has not been very professional. The AGPs are irregular in many FTs. I have seen that unless the AGP is actively pushing to be there, it becomes immaterial for most members if they are absent or present. Some members have an understanding with the AGPs that the member would cross-examine the proceedee. I make it a point to appear for cross-examination and for arguments. While the FT can ask questions, it has to be noted down in the record that the question was posed by the Member and not the Prosecution. However, the member in the name of asking a question cannot conduct a cross-examination. The prosecution arguments and cross should never be done without an AGP, and I make it known to the member. Some disputes have happened between us in the past when the member has interfered while I am conducting my cross and asked a question. They have also asked me to ask a particular question to the proceedee. This not only disrupts the flow of the cross, but the member also did not want to note that this question was asked by the FT. I always ask them to specifically mention it in the record if the Member has asked a question during the course of the cross examination, and that is being done here. But I also know of FTs in which AGPs never appear, and members end up conducting the whole proceedings as prosecution, while also supposedly being the fair adjudicators that they are required to be by the law. Since members also have a say in the removal of the AGP, since they can point out conduct and send in reports to the Government based on such, most AGPs prefer to have good relations with them.” 348 349 Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 [18]; Haidar Ali (n 297) [40]. Pinjira Khatun @ Pinjira Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 159/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 14 June 2022); Hajarat Ali (n 304); Shahjahan Ali (n 299).