4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Moreover, the FTs frequently reject additional evidence in the form of affidavits. The Gauhati High Court has ruled that affidavits constitute a form of written evidence and cannot be outright dismissed unless their authenticity or veracity is specifically challenged.303 However, interviewed lawyers reported that the FTs dismissed evidence, for instance regarding the age and residence of the petitioners, even when the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) failed to contest averments made in the written statement. This contradicts the Gauhati High Court’s rulings that the FT cannot ignore uncontested witness depositions if such evidence corroborates the defendant’s claim of citizenship.304 These practices highlight a systemic failure to ensure fair trial standards in FT proceedings. The procedural inconsistencies in handling written statements, coupled with the improper rejection of evidence, impose insurmountable barriers on defendants. This disregard for principles of natural justice and procedural fairness undermines the legitimacy of the FT system and its ability to adjudicate citizenship claims accurately and fairly. 4.2.4 Obtaining Public and Private Documents Defending citizenship status in the FTs places an immense burden on defendants to produce extensive documentation.305 These documents fall into two categories: first, “legacy” documents proving that the defendant or their ancestors resided in Assam before March 25, 1971; and second, “linkage” documents establishing the relationship between the defendant and these ancestors.306 Common documents include voter rolls, Gaon-Panchayat Certificates, Gaon-Burah Certificates, and school records. Documents such as voter rolls and land records are public documents that must be supplied by government officers upon application. Defendants, however, are often at the mercy of these officers to obtain certified copies. In Moslem Mondal, the Gauhati High Court recognized that disposing of a reference would be impossible if public officers delayed supplying these certified copies. Consequently, it directed that such documents be promptly provided to defendants to ensure a fair trial and reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.307 Despite the High Court’s directive in Moslem Mondal requiring the timely provision of certified public documents to defendants, systemic issues persist. The absence of a systematic, transparent process for supplying documents often leads to delays or denials, undermining the right to a fair trial. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), under Section 173, mandates that investigation materials against an accused be provided free of cost. This principle, rooted in the right to effective remedies under international human rights law, is frequently violated in FT proceedings. 303 State of Assam v. Ohab Ali WP(C) 2641/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 29 May 2018). Hajarat Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 7386/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 14 June 2022). Bhat (n 21). 306 See § 2.3.3. 307 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [98], [99]. 304 305 101