4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Gaon Panchayat Certificates: Misclassification and Burdensome Proof Requirements Gaon Panchayat (GP) Certificates, issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, serve as critical linkage documents in citizenship verification, particularly for women from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who often lack other records, such as birth, school, or property certificates.355 Yet, these certificates have been subjected to inconsistent and onerous evidentiary treatment. Earlier rulings of the Gauhati High Court, formalised in Manowara Bewa v. Union of India,356 wrongly treated GP Certificates as private documents, requiring proof through the issuing authority’s testimony. The Supreme Court in Rupajan Begum v. Union of India corrected this,357 holding that GP Certificates are public documents issued in the discharge of official duties, and noting that the Assam Government had directed their use for NRC linkage purposes. Despite recognising GP Certificates as public documents, Rupajan Begum imposed dual verification of authenticity and content accuracy,358 effectively erasing the distinction between public and private documents. This unjustifiably disregards the presumption of correctness for public documents and imposes undue burdens on litigants. Post-Rupajan Begum, the High Court has failed to apply the presumption of genuineness to GP Certificates and defendants are expected to prove them despite their status as public documents. Typically, the issuing authority is expected to testify before the court. In the cases we reviewed, the certificate was produced in 125 instances, with the Secretary deposing in only 13, with nearly 73% 114 being rejected for lack of legal testimony. It is noteworthy that the GP Certificate has been rejected even when the Gram Panchayat Secretary deposed before the Tribunal to prove its contents (see §4.2.10).359 In other cases, defendants were expected to corroborate these documents through an official register. For example, Justice Manojit Bhuyan rejected GP Certificates due to the absence of an official register, contradicting Rupajan Begum’s clear holding.360 This reasoning implies that the GP Certificate is itself not a public document and it must rely on another public document, in this case the official register. In summation, there is not a single decision in which the GP Certificate was considered a public document. Rather, it was rejected even when attempts were made to corroborate the document. 355 Rhydhi Gupta, ‘Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579’ (Parichay Case Laws, 5 December 2017) <https://www.parichay.org.in/ case-laws/rupajan-begum-v-union-of-india-2018-1-scc-579> accessed 25 June 2025. 356 Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa v. Union of India WP(C) 2634/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 28 February 2017) [71]. 357 Rupajan Begum v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 579 [13], [17]. See also Manoj v. State of Haryana (2022) 6 SCC 187 [39] where the Supreme Court held that public documents are those which are both statutorily required and made in the course of the official’s duty; Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla (1975) 3 SCC 646 [28], where the test was whether the document had been made by a public official in the course of their duty or not. 358 Rupajan Begum (n 357) [16]. 359 Jamal Ali @ Jamal Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 5402/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 27 February 2020). See also Bhat (n 21); Yesmin (n 21). 360 Asthami Das v. Union of India WP(C) 4161/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 9 August 2019).