5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court 5.1.1 Lack of Standards for Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders As established in §4.2.5, the Gauhati High Court’s interpretation of the “sufficient cause” standard places an undue and unrealistic burden on defendants, undermining principles of fair trial, due process, and natural justice. More troublingly, this standard is practically impossible for litigants to satisfy. A review of High Court orders reveals an ad hoc, inconsistent approach in which expectations are reformulated case by case without clear parameters. The Court’s reasoning leaves the standard ill-defined, invoking hypothetical and open-ended steps defendants could or should have taken, rendering the standard unworkable. In effect, the “sufficient cause” standard fails as a legal tool—it does not meaningfully distinguish between circumstances within a defendants control and those beyond it. Grounds of Illness Defendants frequently cite severe illness as the reason for non-appearance, yet the High Court routinely dismisses such claims without clarifying how the standard applies to illness or what level of incapacity might satisfy it. The Court appears to expect that, regardless of illness severity, defendants should have taken mitigating actions—whether attending hearings despite illness or arranging for family members to act on their behalf. The implicit message is stark: defendants must prioritise attending their hearing above all else, no matter their medical condition. ● Abdul Kadir cited diabetes mellitus with neuropathy for missing several hearings. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the plea, finding no evidence that his illness was so severe as to prevent attendance over five years.435 This decision suggests that complications from chronic illness are deemed manageable and within a litigant’s control. ● Jyotsna Nath missed hearings while recovering from a stroke. After recovery, she discovered the ex parte order through her lawyer. Justice Bhuyan held that even in her incapacitated state, she should have remained informed via family members, who had cases pending before the same tribunal.436 Serious illness, the Court suggested, did not absolve responsibility; family members should have acted as proxies. 140 435 Abdul Kadir @ Abdul Kadir Ali and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 7457/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 8 December 2016). See also Nur Banu Begum @ Nur Banu Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 3828/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 2 August 2017), where the Court opined that lumbar pain and spondylosis are not debilitating diseases. 436 Smti. Jyotsna Nath v. Union of India WP(C) 5912/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 3 September 2018).