5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Such inconsistency erodes the credibility of the adjudicative process and leaves defendants unable to predict or understand how their claims will be evaluated. The Court’s failure to articulate why different remedies were appropriate in similar circumstances reflects not only the absence of clear standards but also the unchecked discretion at the heart of citizenship adjudication. “Sufficient Cause” in Inadequate Legal Representation Pleas Consider the case of Ram Krishna Das,468 where the petitioner engaged a lawyer but struggled to file a written statement. The High Court accepted his plea, holding that he deserved reconsideration. In Sersan Ali,469 Justice P.K. Deka went further, placing the onus on the FT to ensure that efforts to file evidence had been exhausted before passing an ex parte order. The Court recognised that the absence of counsel should not unduly prejudice the litigant. By contrast, in Binoy Bhushan Choudhury,470 the High Court dismissed a similar plea. Although Chaudhary’s local counsel had filed a written statement, he lost contact with him due to the lawyer’s illness, and an ex parte order followed. Unlike in Das or Sersan Ali, the Court held Chaudhary personally accountable for his lawyer’s failings, without examining whether he could have reasonably averted the outcome. This inconsistency reveals how the High Court’s application of sufficient cause arbitrarily shifts responsibility—sometimes to the defendants, other times to the lawyer or the FT—without principled engagement with the standard or a coherent basis for these differing expectations. Ignorance of Proceedings In cases where petitioners pleaded ignorance of the proceedings, outcomes have been equally arbitrary. For example, Rani and Gita Satnami argued they had relied on co-villagers who wrongly assured them the proceedings were irrelevant. Justice B.K. Sharma accepted this plea, implicitly acknowledging that poor, unrepresented individuals may be misled by others.471 Yet, he provided no reasoning as to why these cases met the sufficient cause standard, nor did the facts clearly justify the exception. By contrast, the same judge rejected similar pleas in other cases. Md Sukur Ali argued that his 148 brother failed to inform him after receiving the notice;472 Munnaf Ali claimed the same of his wife.473 Both pleas were dismissed, with Justice B.K. Sharma finding that ignorance due to another’s omission did not constitute sufficient cause. The absence of a consistent, articulated framework for determining when ignorance excuses non-appearance leaves outcomes dependent purely on judicial discretion. 468 Ram Krishna Das and Anr. v. Union of India WP(C) 3625/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 19 June 2019). Sersan Ali and Anr. v. Union of India WP(C) 3141/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 27 May 2019). 470 Binoy Bhushan Choudhury (n 452). 471 Smti. Tilmati Satnami @ Rani Satnami v. Union of India WP(C) 4819/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 17 August 2015); Smti. Gita Satnami v. Union of India WP(C) 4817/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 17 August 2015). 472 Abdul Ajit v. State of Assam WP(C) 3163/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 24 August 2015). 473 Munnaf Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 1481/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 8 September 2015). 469