4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process ● It is unclear what “evidence” could have been produced to show an error in a voter roll entry made fifty years earlier. ● More broadly, the weight placed on such minor discrepancies is misplaced. Age entries in voter rolls are self-declared, unverified, and prone to error, especially in contexts where people lack birth certificates or are illiterate. It is widely known that many individuals subject to these proceedings lack official documents, such as birth certificates or school records, that record their date of birth. Moreover, illiteracy is prevalent amongst many. It would be amiss to presume the accuracy of the age indicated on the document and thereby draw conclusions regarding the individual’s identity. A similar issue arose in the case of Ismail Ali Talukdar.415 During his 2016 hearing, Ismail Ali first gave his age as 69, then as 72, suggesting a birth year of either 1944 or 1947. However, the 1966 Voter Roll listed him as 26 years old (implying a birth year of 1940), while the 2011 Voter Roll stated he was 56 (born 1955). Justice Ujjal Bhuyan—presumably like the FT before—seized upon these inconsistencies to reject his claim that he was the same person as the voter recorded in 1966. The Court further pointed to his oral statement that he had voted in Haflong for 35 years—something that appeared inconsistent with his claim of having previously voted in Badarpur. Yet, rather than seeking clarification, the Court used these inconsistencies to discredit the entirety of his case. There are several problems with this approach: ● Minor discrepancies in age are common, especially among people without formal education or official birth records. 126 ● The assumption that oral or documentary statements can provide a precise account of age is unrealistic. In the social context, people often do not know their exact age. ● The Court and the FT before failed to meaningfully examine or clarify Ismail Ali’s claim about his voting history; instead, an isolated and potentially mistaken statement was given undue weight. In both these cases, the variations in age were not viewed in context, nor were efforts made to reconcile them with other consistent aspects of the evidence. Instead, they were used as a pretext to dismiss the entire claim, reflecting a culture of suspicion rather than impartial adjudication. It is worth noting that some High Court judges have recognised the dangers of this approach. For instance, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh explicitly declined to reject voter rolls due to age discrepancies, noting that voter rolls often contain inaccurate age data.416 Similarly, a Division Bench (Suman Shyam and P.J. Saikia JJ.) held that minor inconsistencies in age, name, or address should not, by themselves, discredit a case.417 These decisions demonstrate that a more balanced, context-sensitive approach is both possible and legally sound. 415 416 417 Ismail Ali @ Ismail Ali Talukdar v. Union of India WP(C) 6770/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 12 January 2018). Attaur Rahman v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 2199 [15]. Motior Rahman (n 384) [11].