1. Framing the Intervention 1.2 Argument and Contribution of the Report 20 A substantial body of scholarship, legal analysis, and investigative reporting has exposed the deep procedural and structural deficiencies of Assam’s FT system.21 Four core concerns have emerged. First, the FTs operate without a codified procedural framework (see §1.4), leading to unregulated and discretionary adjudication. Individuals are often denied basic guarantees of natural justice—such as proper service of notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or consistent evidentiary standards. Discretion, rather than principle, frequently drives outcomes. Second, the FT regime imposes harsh and unrealistic evidentiary and procedural burdens, which disproportionately impacts women and Muslims, who are overrepresented among the poor, landless, and historically marginalised.22 Lack of documentation is a structural barrier particularly for the Miya Muslim community living on the chars or riverine islands on the Brahmaputra and other low-lying areas. The community is prone to displacement from flooding, exclusion from formal education and land ownership, and lack of institutional birth or school records.23 Women encounter additional burdens, such as customary name changes after marriage and exclusion from property ownership. Consequently, the communities most vulnerable to exclusion are saddled with the most onerous legal requirements. The concern has been that FTs are erratic in terms of giving adequate time and opportunity to defendants.24 The result is a staggering 63,959 ex parte decisions between 1985 and 2019—almost half of the total number of orders during this period —many of which were issued without a hearing or defence.25 Third, there is a documented pattern of rigid, formalistic scrutiny of evidence.26 Minor discrepancies— such as spelling errors, customary name changes (particularly among married women), or variations from transliteration—are often treated as fatal flaws. Oral testimony, even from family members with direct knowledge, is regularly dismissed. This obsession with documentary precision ignores the lived realities of marginalised communities. Fourth, the reversed burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act—the statute governing the FTs—presumes individuals to be foreigners unless they can prove otherwise. This is a burden that is especially insurmountable for those without access to legal aid or robust documentation. Rather than placing responsibility on the State to prove exclusion, the regime shifts the onus entirely onto the defendant . Building on these foundational insights, this report contributes to the field in four significant and original ways. First, it offers the most comprehensive legal analysis of the FT regime to date, integrating constitutional principles and international human rights standards into a unified normative framework. It shows how the system systematically violates the right to a fair trial, due process, equality before the law, and the principles of natural justice. A core contribution lies in demonstrating how domestic