4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process While lawyers report that this issue regarding the non-issuance of summons has been raised in multiple writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court, our dataset of over 10 years of High Court orders does not reflect even a single case where the Court has addressed this issue or passed directions for FT members to follow. A notable exception is a 2022 verdict by Justice Kotiswar Singh, who criticised tribunals for failing to summon witnesses and held that the responsibility should not entirely rest on the defendants.345 He held that “there is ample power prescribed under the Foreigners Act read with the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to enforce attendance of any person by issuing summons for the purposes of examining him/her on oath.” It is thus vital on part of the tribunal to issue summons and enforce attendance of a witness if they deem it necessary for any such witness to testify to prove the contents of the document at hand. Every opportunity in law must be made available to the defendant to discharge their burden, and it should not become incumbent on them to procure witnesses, especially when FTs have the power to enforce attendance of such witnesses.346 The tribunals’ reluctance to summon witnesses severely undermines fair trial rights by shifting an unreasonable burden onto litigants. This is especially damaging where state officials are needed as witnesses. By expecting defendants—already disadvantaged by systemic power imbalances—to bear this burden, FTs obstruct the presentation of crucial evidence. 4.2.9 Improper Cross-Questioning Cross-examination is a crucial part of trial proceedings, allowing the opposing party to test the credibility of witnesses. After a witness is examined by the party that summoned them, the other side has the opportunity to cross-examine.347 However, FT members frequently conduct crossexaminations on behalf of the State Government, particularly when the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) is absent, which is a common occurrence. Government Pleaders are often deliberately absent during cross-examinations, relying on an implicit understanding with FT members that the latter will conduct the questioning. One lawyer even objected to a member taking over cross-examination in the absence of the AGP, but such objections rarely modify the FT’s practices. An AGP reported that while AGPs would be aware of the matter coming up for cross-examination and intend to appear, the member would deliberately proceed without them and conclude the hearing. He exclaimed that it is “immaterial” for most members whether the AGP is present during the course of the proceedings, and there are instances where AGPs have to inform the member in advance so that they do not proceed without them. 345 Md. Tafajjul Hussain @ Tafajjul Hussain WP(C) 364/2020 (Gauhati High Court, 7 April 2022) [18]; Nashima @ Nasima Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 8838/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 29 January 2021). Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964, para 4. 347 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 138. 346 111