4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process right of the accused to receive the documents/statements submitted before the court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law.”259 Although the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 does not explicitly guarantee the right to fair disclosure, this right is integral to ensuring a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as underscored by these judgments. 4.1.3 Shielding of Inquiry Officers Closely related to denying access to inquiry reports is the systemic refusal to summon inquiry officers and allow their cross-examination. Even where referral documents contain material contradictions or flawed inquiry reports, applications to summon the responsible officer are routinely rejected—often on the pretext that the officer is no longer in service, has been transferred, or that “the Tribunal does not issue summons.” As one senior lawyer put it: “They simply say, ‘not our lookout.’ Even if you point out that the EO has made false statements, the Tribunal will say, ‘you prove your case; the burden is on you.’” This approach relieves Referral Authorities of lawful accountability and shields them from scrutiny. The 2012 amendment to the FT Order has entrenched this further, shifting focus almost entirely to the defendant’s documentation and rendering procedural objections—even those raising jurisdictional failings—effectively irrelevant. The result is a system where the very agents initiating proceedings are insulated from legal oversight. Tribunals ignore the legality of referrals, dismiss objections without reason, refuse to summon inquiry officers, and operate with no meaningful enforcement of procedural standards—turning the State’s 92 failure to follow lawful process into a legally inconsequential fact. 4.1.4 Failure of the High Court Despite these systemic defects, the Gauhati High Court has consistently treated procedural failures in the referral process as remediable technicalities rather than as fundamental violations. The Court has also contributed to lowering the threshold for lawful referral. Lawyers report that judges often assert an “enquiry need not be exhaustive” and that it suffices for the Referral Authority to have “subjective satisfaction” based on “some material”—a standard so vague it enables arbitrary action. Advocate ZH has attempted to challenge the accuracy of inquiries through writ petitions in the High Court, but has been unsuccessful. He told us that the High Court often rejects petitions as “factually useless” and “time-wasting” tactics, and tells petitioners to “worry about proving their citizenship and not waste time on these things.” 259 V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police (2012) 9 SCC 771 [19].