5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court testimony and corroborative statements, the High Court has undermined its own precedents. It continues to disregard oral evidence from witnesses including family members citing little or no reasoning—either rejecting testimonies outright in the absence of documentary support or incorrectly appreciating them.532 In Jamila Khatun (2023),533 the petitioner challenged her designation as a post-1971 foreigner. The High Court failed to document the FT’s reasoning for this designation. Although Jamila produced certificates from the Gaon Panchayat Secretary and the Gaonburah linking her to her father, A. Jalil, the Court summarily dismissed both, asserting that they did not satisfy Section 50’s requirement of special knowledge—without providing any substantive legal basis for this conclusion. During the course of the depositions, the defendant relied on evidence rendered by Md. Abdul Jalil of village Baligaon, who identified the defendant as his daughter. In the 1966 voters list annexed by the defendant to prove linkage with her father, the same Abdul Jalil was a resident of village Podopari. This difference in villages was not addressed in the witness’s deposition. However, further questioning by the State counsel during cross-examination revealed that Abdul Jalil had shifted to Baligaon about 20 years ago, and was the same person who was registered on the voters list of Podopari in 1966. Rather than taking note of this and considering these facts in favour of the defendant, the Court remanded the matter back to the FT and directed the state authorities to reexamine the same witness. The Court further directed that the order be brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Assam “to ensure that the State authorities do not indulge in such acts of cross examination so as to come to an aid of the proceedees in the garb of cross examination and to conduct the cross examination in the manner as required under the law.” The fact that the cross-examination aided the defendant in explaining a discrepancy was used as a basis for the Court to declare the evidence rendered by Abdul Jalil as unreliable, a position which is entirely unsupported by law. Similarly, in Rahimon Khatun (2023),534 the defendant contested her designation as a post-1971 foreigner by the FT at Goalpara. The High Court’s ruling neither recorded the FT’s reasoning nor 162 analysed the evidentiary value of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary’s certificate linking Rahimon to her father, Abdur Rahman. The Court dismissed this testimony simply by stating that the Secretary lacked special knowledge, without examining the substance of the testimony or considering whether the State had rebutted it. This summary rejection, contrary to established standards, reflects a failure to uphold legal consistency. 532 Abdur Rahim @ Abdul Rahim v. Union of India WP(C) 4009/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 15 June 2023); Falu Sheikh v. Union of India WP(C) 6605/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 10 May 2023); Abeda Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 4965/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 10 April 2023); Keshmati Namasudra v. Union of India WP(C) 5957/2022 (Gauhati High Court, 3 April 2023); Jahura Khatun (n 431). 533 Jamila Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 6705/2021 (Gauhati High Court, 14 August 2023). 534 Rahimon Khatoon @ Rahima Khatun @ Rohimon Nessa v. Union of India WP(C) 1927/2023 (Gauhati High Court, 31 July 2023).