4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrated how a reasoned approach—focused on reconciling discrepancies rather than magnifying them—can ensure fair adjudication. By reading the evidence as a whole, the Court found that Sirajul Hoque had sufficiently established his lineage and, therefore, his citizenship. Yet, the Gauhati High Court has often failed to apply this approach. In Arabinda Biswas,411 despite the petitioner submitting over 12 documents and oral testimony, the evidence was discarded wholesale without reasoned analysis. The High Court did not intervene to correct the FT’s failure to consider the evidence cumulatively, instead endorsing the dismissal on minor discrepancies. Reading Documents Together to Reach Adverse Findings As discussed earlier, the FTs and the High Court often fail to compare documents with the aim of reconciling discrepancies and establishing identity. Instead, documents are read together primarily to draw adverse conclusions about the defendant’s claim. This approach focuses not on what the documents aim to prove, but on collateral details to undermine the evidence. This approach contradicts established legal principles that allow courts to consider the credible portions of evidence, even if parts of it are false, as long as the truth can be separated from the falsehoods.412 A striking example is how the High Court has treated discrepancies in recorded ages across documents. Instead of recognising these as minor or understandable errors—given the socioeconomic realities of those involved—the Gauhati High Court has treated such variations as fatal to the entire claim. Typically, a person’s stated age is cross-referenced across multiple documents, such as voter rolls, and if the chronology appears implausible, all the evidence is dismissed as unreliable. Consider the case of Abdul Matali.413 His father was recorded as Abdul Aziz, aged 40, in the 1965 Voter Roll, but his passport identified him as Abdul Aziz Sheikh, born in 1913. Accepting the FT’s decision in the writ challenge in the High Court, Justice B.P. Katakey reasoned that if Abdul Aziz Sheikh was born in 1913, his age in 1965 should have been 52, not 40. On this basis, he concluded that Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz Sheikh were different people. The contention that the Election Commission may have erred in recording the age was rejected because no separate evidence was produced to prove this. This reasoning is problematic on several counts: ● Passports have been routinely dismissed as irrelevant for proving citizenship.414 Yet, here, the passport was used selectively to draw an adverse inference. This displays a contradictory approach towards the document; it is rejected if it favours defendants, but it is relied upon for drawing an adverse inference against them. 411 Arabinda Biswas and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 2618/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 10 April 2024). Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511 [8]. Abdul Matali (n 395). 414 Sankar Das v. Union of India WP(C) 3362/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 10 June 2019); Rukiya Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 4049/2020 (Gauhati High Court, 12 October 2020). See also Bhat (n 21). 412 413 125