1. Framing the Intervention 29 1.5 Structure of the Report This report is organised into two main parts, each of which builds a cumulative argument about the fundamental legal, constitutional, and human rights deficiencies of the FT system in Assam, and the devastating consequences of these deficiencies for individuals and communities subjected to its processes. Part I, comprising Chapters 2 and 3, lays the normative, doctrinal, and legal foundation for the critique, while Part II, comprising Chapters 4 and 5, presents a granular empirical and procedural analysis of how these structural failures play out in practice, leading to profound injustice. Together, the chapters are tightly interlinked: the normative arguments of Part I not only frame the detailed empirical analysis of Part II, but also find confirmation in the evidence of systemic malfunction and harm documented therein. Chapter 2 begins the analysis by demonstrating that the institutional design of the FT system violates both the Indian Constitution and India’s international human rights obligations. It argues that the FTs are neither established by law nor structured to ensure the independence, impartiality, and competence that citizenship adjudication demands. Citizenship, as the report underscores, is the foundational political status upon which access to all other rights depends, and decisions affecting this status require the highest standards of legality, fairness, and integrity. Yet, the FTs lack a secure legislative foundation, operate under executive control, and are staffed by members who often do not have the requisite legal expertise or independence. This chapter shows that the FTs fail to meet the basic rule of law requirements under domestic and international law and that their operation represents a breach of the constitutional promise of equal protection, fair trial, and effective remedy. It further highlights that the post-Sonowal and Bahaluddin jurisprudence wrongly endorsed the FTs as exclusive forums for citizenship determination without addressing their structural illegitimacy, thereby enabling a legal architecture that facilitates arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of citizenship. Chapter 3 extends this critique to the procedural domain. It argues that the FT system, in both its legal design and everyday practice, violates the right to a fair trial, particularly the principle of equality of arms. The chapter explains how the burden of proof, as misconstrued and implemented in the FT regime, places an almost insurmountable burden on defendants, while relieving the State of its responsibilities to establish a case or rebut evidence. It shows that the supposed safeguards envisioned by the judiciary—such as the phased burden shifting and meaningful State participation— have collapsed in practice, with the State often absent from proceedings, leaving FT members to assume improper roles as partisan inquisitors rather than neutral adjudicators. This chapter anchors its critique in both constitutional guarantees of fairness under Articles 14 and 21 and international fair trial standards, demonstrating that the procedural structure of the FTs is designed, and functions to the systemic disadvantage of those accused of being foreigners.