4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process “Routine” Grounds as Unjustified The High Court frequently rejects writ petitions on the ground that they rely on “routine” arguments, asserting that widespread procedural defects cannot justify setting aside ex parte orders. In Moslem Mondal, the High Court stressed the need to balance fairness with efficiency, warning against routinely entertaining such challenges.329 However, this principle has been applied in a troubling manner, with judges dismissing writ petitions simply because they have “heard it all before,”330 rather than engaging with the substance of the procedural violations raised. In Fatema Khatun’s case, she argued that her lawyer’s failure to adduce evidence led to the ex parte order against her. She even lodged a complaint with the Bar Council, the statutory body responsible for upholding professional standards. Despite highlighting this, Justice B.K. Sharma dismissed her petition, reasoning that similar claims were often made by declared foreigners.331 This approach undermines fair trial rights by privileging efficiency over individual justice and disregarding the systemic barriers that defendants face in securing effective legal representation. 4.2.6 Admission and Denial Stage Under the CPC, litigating parties are required to file a statement of admission or denial of documents, with any denial accompanied by reasons.332 This process aims to narrow the scope of the trial to only the contested documents, as the primary purpose of admission is to dispense with the need for further proof.333 The FT Order 1964 does not explicitly mandate this stage. Consequently, parties do not formally articulate their position regarding the documents submitted by the opposing side in writing. Incorporating this stage is crucial, as it is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, providing both parties with the opportunity to clarify their stance on the documents presented by the other side.334 The absence of this procedural safeguard has significant implications for the fairness of proceedings in citizenship determination cases. Many documents involved in these cases are public records that the State Government is best positioned to verify. However, because the Government is not required to formally declare its position on these documents, it frequently challenges them during cross-examination of the defendant or at the argument stage without prior notice. This practice disadvantages defendants, as they are often unprepared to address these objections or defend the authenticity of their documents. 329 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [92]. This has been observed in multiple jurisdictions, where judges who regularly hear the same types of cases adopt such an attitude. See Jessica Hambly and Nick Gill, ‘Law and Speed: Asylum Appeals and the Techniques and Consequences of Legal Quickening’ (2020) 47 Journal of Law and Society 3, 23. 331 Mustt. Fatema Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 6030/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 11 December 2015). 332 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XI Rule 4(1). 333 Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 58. 334 A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu (2012) 6 SCC 430 [29]. 330 107