5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Ultimately, the High Court’s approach weakens public confidence in the rule of law and exacerbates the inherent deficiencies of the Foreigners Tribunal system. Rectifying this requires more than individual judicial restraint; it demands the establishment of clear, consistent, and legally sound standards for assessing evidence and determining remedies. Only then can citizenship adjudication be aligned with constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and justice. 5.3. A System Impervious to Reform The Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court have issued judgments that lay down norms addressing lacunae in the FT system.523 Between February 2021 and February 2023, the Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh delivered judgments that sought to enhance procedural integrity and fairness in the FTs. The following were some important areas of law that these judgments developed. ● The bench mandated requiring referral authorities to rigorously apply their minds and clearly state the grounds for each case, thereby limiting the FT’s jurisdiction strictly to the matters specified in the reference.524 ● It reinforced procedural safeguards: proper service of notice, accurate identification of individuals prior to proceedings, and a holistic evaluation of evidence.525 ● It cautioned the FTs against mechanically rejecting documents—including post-1971 records— and affirmed the admissibility of corroborative materials such as Gaon Panchayat certificates.526 ● The importance of maternal testimony under Section 50 of the Evidence Act was emphasised,527 alongside the obligation on the FTs to summon key witnesses capable of substantiating claims. ● The bench extended the application of res judicata to prevent repeated proceedings against the same individual and allowed delays in review petitions where substantive justice required it,528 urging decisions based on merit rather than procedural technicalities. ● The bench also clarified the question of territorial jurisdiction under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, clarifying who the FT can and cannot proceed against.529 160 523 Safiya Khatun (n 298); Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 604; Amena Khatun v. State of Assam WP (C) 4146/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 27 September 2018); Santosh Das v. Union of India (2017) 5 GLR 510; Sirajul Hoque (n 384); Md. Anuwar Hussain (n 384); Moslem Mondal (n 188). 524 Sona Kha @ Sona Khan v. Union of India WP(C) 1293/2021 (Gauhati High Court, 24 March 2021). 525 Amina Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 2975/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 28 April 2022); Rina Rani Das v. Union of India WP(C) 2706/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 10 March 2021); Kabir Uddin (n 276); Abdul Azid @ Aziz @ Ajid Ali and Anr. v. Union of India WP(C) 1153/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 13 December 2022). 526 Pinjira Khatun (n 349). 527 Sujab Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 2221/2020 (Gauhati High Court, 20 August 2021); Karim Ali @ Abdul Karim v. Union of India WP(C) 7361/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 16 June 2022). 528 Sital Mandal v. Union of India WP(C) 2099/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 28 April 2022). 529 Anjana Biswas (n 253); Bablu Paul @ Sujit Paul v. Union of India WP(C) 7229/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 14 December 2021).