4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process 4.2.10 Proving Public and Private Documents Proving a document requires establishing both its authenticity and the reliability of its contents. Yet, practices in the FTs—compounded by Gauhati High Court rulings—frequently depart from settled evidentiary norms, imposing onerous burdens on litigants and undermining fair trial guarantees. Public Documents and Presumption of Genuineness Under Indian evidence law—now governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) on 1 July 2024—public documents enjoy a presumption of genuineness and correctness. Certified copies of such documents, including voter rolls, are admissible without further proof unless that presumption is rebutted.350 This rests on the assumption that public officers act in good faith. However, the FTs and the High Court routinely disregard this principle. In Borhan Ali v. Union of India,351 Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected a voter roll’s authenticity, citing the absence of the voter’s age and the general suspicion surrounding Assam’s voter lists. He remarked that “it would be safer to insist for proof as it is in the public domain that a large number of voter lists have been suspected to not be genuine.” This stance reflects systemic distrust, overriding the statutory presumption. Similarly, Justice Manojit Bhuyan dismissed handwritten voter rolls due to their “deplorable condition” and inconsistent ink usage, imposing arbitrary standards that ignore the legal presumption of regularity.352 In Sati Baishya v. Union of India,353 Justice M.R. Pathak upheld the FT’s demand for certified voter rolls to be compared with original records or corroborated by testimony from issuing authorities — again imposing extra-legal burdens on litigants. These rulings force defendants to prove documents that the law presumes genuine. Under Indian evidence law, proof should be required only where the presumption is rebutted with evidence. Yet in these cases, no such rebuttal occurred, and defendants were denied an opportunity to establish authenticity once doubt had been arbitrarily raised. By contrast, in Mazibar Miah v. Union of India,354 Justice A.M. Bujor Barua adhered to the correct principle, affirming that voter rolls are public documents and do not require validation by the officer who prepared them. However, such fidelity to the law remains the exception rather than the norm. Frequently annexed documents in the 1,193 High Court orders under study 350 Document No. of petitioners No. of women Gaonburah certificates 165 85 Gaonpanchayat certificates 146 94 School certificates 118 63 Jamabandi and other land documents 160 67 Electoral rolls 523 266 Indian Evidence Act 1872, ss 77, 79, 114(e). Borhan Ali (n 340). Musstt Joynab Bibi and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 7035/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 15 November 2018). 353 Smt. Sati Baishya @ Sati Mitra @ Saraswati Baishya v. Union of India WP(C) 8585/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 20 September 2024). 354 Mazibar Miah v. Union of India WP(C) 871/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 13 February 2019) [4]. 351 352 113