4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process 4.2.3 Filing Written Statement Defendants are required to file a written statement that outlines the necessary averments to prove their citizenship, including references to supporting documents and annexed duplicates. While the procedural rules for pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) do not strictly apply in these proceedings,297 the broader procedural principles are still relevant and expected to be applied generally. This flexibility–rather than permitting an approach informed by due process and suitable for citizenship determination–has become a way of undermining participation in proceedings. For instance, the FTs reject requests of defendants to introduce information about relatives or documentary evidence that were not initially mentioned in the written statement. As lawyers consistently mentioned, FTs often reject additional evidence or statements filed after the original written statement, ignoring the significance of such evidence in helping defendants meet their burden of proof. Notably, this is not legally sanctioned. Under Section 4 of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the FTs and the High Court can permit additional written statements or evidence to be filed. The Gauhati High Court has clarified that the CPC provision prohibiting amendment of pleadings after the trial’s commencement (Order VI Rule 17) does not apply to the FTs.298 The High Court has underscored the need to provide defendants with every opportunity to introduce evidence in their defence, holding that procedural technicalities should not impede justice. The Court has observed that introducing new facts or documents at a later stage, provided they are relevant and do not prejudice the State’s case, should not be disallowed. It has also emphasized that non-disclosure of 100 certain details in the written statement cannot automatically lead to adverse inferences if such details are disclosed during cross-examination or at a later stage.299 The FTs must allow amendments to the written statement and admit additional evidence where relevant, particularly when such evidence bolsters the case without contradicting the initial defence.300 In practice, the FTs often disregard the probative value and deny admissibility of such evidence, despite the lack of any legal requirement for all evidence to be included at the outset. 301 Not being able to provide more information in the written statement can be fatal to a defendant’s case. This is because the Gauhati High Court has held in other cases that the failure to disclose material facts in the written statement may result in adverse inferences against the defendant,302 making written statements the primary defence of defendants. This approach undermines fair process and the ability of defendants to participate in proceedings, because it fails to recognize the realities of FT proceedings where defendants need time to gather and file evidence over a period of time because of lack of access or need for resources. 298 Safiya Khatun v. Union of India, WP (C) 7617/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 16 November 2018). Shahjahan Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 6176/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 16 June 2022). Haidar Ali (n 297) [39]. 301 Jehirul Islam v. Union of India WP(C) 7347/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 16 May 2017); Saru Sheikh v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GLR 295. 302 ibid. 299 300