4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Similarly, in another case, Jahura Bibi’s father appeared as Alepuddin Sekh, Alek Uddin Sekh, and Alim Uddin Sheik in successive records. The High Court dismissed her writ for failing to prove these referred to the same person, despite her Gaon Panchayat certificate linking her to Alim Uddin of the 1971 voter roll—evidence that should have sufficed.401 Perhaps, these discrepancies could have been resolved if the judge had asked the defendant to explain if these names referred to the same individual, as it did in Pinjra Khatun v. Union of India, where Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that the State ought to have pointed out discrepancies, giving an opportunity to the defendant to explain them.402 These cases illustrate how excessive focus on name discrepancies often derails the adjudication, making the resolution of these variations the core issue, even when it is irrelevant to the fact in issue. 4.2.12 Evidence is not read as a whole Citizenship determination typically involves a combination of documents and oral testimony. Proper adjudication requires evidence to be read holistically, as individual pieces gain meaning when seen in relation to one another, forming a coherent picture. However, the FTs—and, affirmatively, the Gauhati High Court—have consistently failed to adopt this approach. Instead, evidence is examined in isolation. Documents that could corroborate or contextualise other material are discarded if they do not independently establish the claim. Likewise, documents are rejected for inaccuracies about facts they were not intended to prove. This piecemeal reading of 122 evidence prevents the interaction of different pieces of proof, undermining fair adjudication. This has happened despite the recognition of higher courts—including by Gauhati High Court in some cases—that evidence must be treated holistically, and not determined solely by minor inaccuracies or some missing documents. For instance, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in Haidar Ali v. Union of India, noted that the standard of proof in citizenship determination proceedings being “preponderance of probability,” FTs should not reject claims based on “minor inconsistencies here and there in the evidence of the proceedee,”403 or “merely because some documentary evidence were [sic] not produced.”404 Apart from a few similar judgments which have emphasised the importance of cumulative assessment405 (see Chapter 5, §5.3)—the High Court has largely failed to promote a holistic approach. In this section, we explore the pitfalls of this fragmented reading and illustrate how such practices have compromised the integrity of the citizenship determination process. 401 Jahura Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 6407/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 8 August 2019). Pinjira Khatun (n 349). Haidar Ali (n 297) [43]. 404 ibid [46]. 405 Uttam Ghosh v. Union of India WP(C) 93/2022 (Gauhati High Court, 23 June 2022). 402 403