4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process decisions. This perspective essentially grants the Referral Authority broad discretion to make referrals arbitrarily, undercutting the mandate that such referrals be grounded in thoughtful consideration of collected evidence. A similar disregard for investigative integrity appears in the case of Md. Jalaluddin,261 who was referred to the Tribunal despite the Inquiry Officer’s conclusion that he was a citizen. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remanded the case, merely noting that the Referral Authority should have provided brief reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer’s conclusion. However, a remand was unwarranted, as there was no basis for the reference: the Referral Authority had failed to apply its mind to the evidence and provided no additional material to justify its decision. Remanding the case served no purpose, as the Tribunal cannot correct a fundamental defect caused by the Referral Authority’s failure to follow the required process. In another case, Justice B.K. Sharma noted the lawyer’s submission on behalf of Sulema Khatun, alleging that the Inquiry Officer had falsified the report. However, the Court dismissed the writ petition on unrelated grounds,262 displaying a dismissive attitude toward this serious allegation. Similarly, in Usharani Biswas’s case,263 the contention that the inquiry officer had failed to seek her defense during investigation was ignored; Justice Manojit Bhuyan merely remanded the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration without directing any review of this critical procedural lapse. Such dismissals reveal a reluctance to scrutinize or remedy procedural defects in the inquiry process. These cases illustrate a troubling pattern wherein both the Foreigners Tribunals and the High Court sideline essential procedural norms by failing to acknowledge or record challenges to flawed 94 inquiries. This neglect not only undermines the fairness of the citizenship determination process but also erodes the foundational principles of due process in administrative adjudication. Systemic Violations During Status Determination Proceedings 4.2 While the FTs are empowered to depart from strict procedural and evidentiary norms of civil law, they are nonetheless bound by fundamental principles of natural justice and due process.264 This obligation is particularly pressing given the critical constitutional significance of citizenship status. But these principles have been systematically undermined. Rather than ensuring that the procedural norms reflect the seriousness of citizenship adjudication, the FTs have frequently replaced ordinary adjudicative standards with onerous and unreasonable burdens that disregard these serious constitutional stakes. 261 Jalal Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 2528/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 22 April 2016). Sulema Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 1691/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 25 March 2015). Usharani Biswas v. Union of India WP(C) 4869/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 9 September 2019). 264 Sonowal II (n 42) [50]; Mohd. Misher Ali v. Union of India 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3432 [13]. 262 263