4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process as this may readily explain minor errors or inconsistencies.383 In a few decisions, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court have taken a more judicious stance, recognising that discrepancies should not outweigh the overall reliability of evidence when viewed in context.384 Nevertheless, in practice, the mere presence of discrepancies continues to serve as a basis for rejecting entire bodies of evidence wholesale. In the sections that follow, we explore plausible explanations for common discrepancies, demonstrating how they could have been reconciled rather than treated as grounds to discard the evidence in its entirety. Spelling Errors Discrepancies in names across documents often arise from spelling errors, transliteration mistakes, or inconsistent recording of names. Yet, the Gauhati High Court has largely failed to recognise that such errors are an inherent feature of document preparation. For example, Rahman Ali provided his father’s name as Khurshed Ali. In the 1965 and 1970 voter rolls, however, his father’s name appeared as Furshed Azli, while later rolls from 1989, 1997, and 2010 correctly recorded it as Khurshed Ali. Justice B.K. Sharma nonetheless held that Rahman Ali failed to prove that Furshed Ali and Khurshed Ali were the same person, overlooking that the discrepancy could have resulted from corrections of earlier misspellings.385 Similarly, Justice Bujor Barua ruled that Atifa Begum Barbuiya’s citizenship was unproven, as there was no evidence linking Wakul Ali (1985 voter roll) with Tuakul Ali (1965 voter roll).386 119 Such discrepancies are unsurprising given how voter rolls are prepared in India. The Election Commission verifies, drafts, finalises, and translates voter lists into multiple official languages of the state. Assam has four official languages: Assamese, Bodo, Meitei, and Bengali (in certain districts). Names, transliterated across languages and dialects, often vary in spelling. For instance, Faizur Rahman might appear as Fazal Rahman or Faizur Rihman depending on pronunciation, dialect, or enumerator error—particularly where no cross-checking occurs. The Supreme Court of India has acknowledged this reality,387 observing that variations in names arise when names are recorded based on pronunciation across different languages and scripts. Due to such variations, there is also a lack of consistency between names of the same people in successive voter lists. However, the Gauhati High Court has refused to recognize this ground reality in several cases. In one instance, Justice Amitava Roy noted that the 1970 Voter Roll identified 383 State of MP v. Chhaaki Lal & Anr. (2019) 12 SCC 326 [22]; Manoj & Ors v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353 [180]. Rahim Ali (n 2) [41]; Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (2019) 5 SCC 534 [4]; Md. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain WP(C) 4258/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 4 March 2014) [11]; Motior Rahman v. Union of India WP(C) 3185/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 26 November 2019) [11], [12]. 385 Rahman Ali @ Rakhman Ali and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 2017/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 9 September 2013). 386 Atifa Begum Barbhuiya @ Atifa Begum WP(C) 7292/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 31 January 2019). 387 Rahim Ali (n 2). 384