5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court The Invocation of “Special or Exceptional” Circumstances The use of terms like “special” or “exceptional” to justify relief further reveals inconsistency. In Jatan Karmakar,474 Justice Hrishikesh Roy accepted the claim that the petitioner was misled by his lawyer, calling it “exceptional”—despite nothing in the facts distinguishing his case from others where similar claims were rejected. Likewise, in Sudhir Sarkar,475 Justice B.K. Sharma quashed an ex parte order on the ground that the lawyer, not the client waiting outside the courtroom, bore the duty of reminding the client of the hearing date—a burden rarely imposed on lawyers in comparable situations. Inconsistent Application of “Interest of Justice” When should a writ petition be allowed “in the interest of justice”? And why do similar cases not receive the same relief? The Gauhati High Court’s use of this standard reveals a troubling absence of clear criteria, leading to decisions that appear arbitrary and unprincipled. Take Ushab Ali,476 who declined to accept the notice because the village was wrongly recorded in the summons. The Court labelled him a “wilful defaulter”, reasoning that there was no doubt the notice was intended for him. In contrast, Abul Kasem faced a similar error—his notice listed only his father’s name correctly—yet Justice Manojit Bhuyan remanded the case “in the interest of justice.”477 Both cases involved errors in notice details, yet outcomes diverged without explanation. The lack of consistent, articulated standards allows such decisions to rest on subjective interpretation. This opens the door to factors outside the legal record influencing outcomes. The “interest of justice” rationale, as applied, lacks transparency and fails to clarify why some petitions succeed while others do not, undermining confidence in the fairness of these rulings. Application of different standards The irrelevance of the “sufficient cause” standard in actual decision-making is starkly exposed when comparing similar cases involving elderly women citing illness for non-appearance. Anjali Biswas argued that she missed hearings due to illness. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed her plea, emphasising the absence of medical proof and stating that her case did not meet the threshold of a “special” or “exceptional circumstance.”478 In contrast, Purnima Das submitted a medical certificate, yet Justice Bhuyan still rejected her plea, again finding no “special/exceptional circumstance.”479 474 Jatan Karmakar and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 3964/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 22 May 2014). Sudhir Sarkar and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 5592/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 21 February 2014). 476 Md. Yusab Ali @ Ushab Ali @ Yusuf Ali (n 275). 477 Abul Kasem (n 274). 478 Anjali Biswas @ Madhukola Mandal @ Madhukola Biswas @ Madhukola Sundari v. Union of India WP(C) 2777/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 17 May 2017). 479 Purnima Das v. Union of India WP(C) 3319/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 14 June 2016). 475 149