5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Grounds of inadequate legal representation In cases where litigants cited inadequate legal representation to set aside ex parte orders, the Gauhati High Court has provided no workable standard for assessing when counsel’s failure amounts to “sufficient cause.” Pleas are routinely rejected without clarifying what steps the defendant should have taken or why their actions fell short. The Court simply asserts that additional efforts could or should have been made, without specifying what these might be. This pattern leaves the “sufficient cause” standard so undefined that no action seems sufficient. Crucially, the High Court fails to apply the standard’s core inquiry: could further steps have realistically been within the defendants control? By sidestepping this question, the standard becomes hollow, incapable of distinguishing between what is and is not within a defendants power. As a result, no matter how diligent litigants are, they are unable to satisfy the standard. ● In Kodvan Nessa’s case,437 her lawyer failed to inform her of the need to submit evidence, leading to an ex parte order. Justice B.K. Sharma rejected her plea, reasoning that she should have independently known to adduce evidence despite hiring counsel for that purpose. ● Aijuddin’s lawyer failed to file his written statement. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held this did not amount to “sufficient cause,”438 suggesting that Aijuddin should have filed the statement himself or ensured his lawyer did so—effectively requiring defendants to double-check or duplicate their counsel’s work. As it stands, the “sufficient cause” standard fails to provide any concrete, actionable requirements for litigants. With no coherent guidance on how it should be satisfied, the standard is unworkable. This lack of clarity not only renders the standard impractical but also creates a fundamental barrier to justice. The High Court’s interpretation does not inform FTs when they may rightly proceed with ex parte decisions, nor does it offer any guidance to the public on what steps they must take to avoid such determinations. This results in a futile and counterproductive inquiry, leaving defendants without any meaningful way to meet the “sufficient cause” standard. 141 437 438 Kodvanu @ Kodvan Nessa @ Kodvan Bibi @ Kodvanu Bibi @ Begum Kodvanu Nessa v. State of Assam WP(C) 1025/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 20 January 2012). Aijuddin (n 321).