4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Rajendra Das as the son of Radha Charan, whereas the 1966 Voter Roll identified Rajendra Das as the son of Radhacharan Das.388 This was termed as a discrepancy without considering the possibility that the official who recorded Rajendra Das as a voter might have inadvertently omitted the surname ‘Das’ from his father’s name. Thus, Justice Roy failed to consider that this should not have been the sole basis for rejecting the evidence. Similarly, Justice Manojit Bhuyan ruled that Ibrahim Ali was unable to establish that Late Nurul, listed as his father in the 1989 Voter Roll, was the same person as Nurul Islam, recorded in the 1965 and 1970 Voter Rolls.389 Again, he overlooked the possibility that the official may have dropped ‘Islam’ from the father’s name, or the family may have referred to the father as ‘Late Nurul’ after his death. Spelling errors also explain mismatches between names in voter rolls and Gaon Panchayat certificates. In one case, Hazara Khatoon’s father appeared as Amul Suvan in the 1966 roll, while the Gaon Panchayat Secretary testified she was the daughter of Abdul Sobhan, whom he had known for 15 years.390 Despite her explanation that Abdul Sobhan was misrecorded as Amul Suvan—most likely by an Election Commission officer unfamiliar with linguistic and religious traditions of this minority— Justice Bujor Barua dismissed the writ petition, holding that lineage must link to the specific name in public records and rule out other possibilities. Disconcertingly, Justice Barua articulated an unseemly high—and one might argue unrealistic—evidentiary standard. The order noted that the defendant must establish “that the lineage is not only with respect to the person whose name appears in the public documents relied upon but at the same time rules out the possibility of it being linked to any other person having a same or a similar name.”391 120 Yet there are rare cases where the High Court appears to take a more realistic view of documentation. In Subha Das, Justice B.K. Sharma accepted that variations in surname (e.g., Roy and Das) could arise from clerical error, especially when later rolls corrected the names.392 But, such rare cases do not ameliorate an otherwise dismal picture of adjudication, and in fact further highlight the capriciousness in the appreciation of evidence (see Chapter 5, §5.2.1) 388 Rajendra Das v. State of Assam WP(C) 1602/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 27 July 2010). Ibrahim Ali Mir @ Md. Ibrahim Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 3260/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 14 June 2019). 390 Musst. Hazara Khatoon v. Union of India WP(C) 7317/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 22 January 2019). 391 ibid [15]. 392 Subha Rani Das @ Subha Das v. State of Assam WP(C) 3854/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 7 October 2015). 389