3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial The right to participate fully in proceedings, as highlighted in the UK Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014, or the right to challenge evidence and have notice of charges, as guaranteed under the South African Constitution, are essential components of equality of arms. Similarly, the requirement of procedural fairness outlined in Canada’s Federal Court in Hassouna 233—including oral hearings, an independent tribunal, and the right to know the case to be met—stands in sharp contrast to the FT system’s practices. These international and state practices underscore the importance of the right to notice and grounds, participation and challenge, and judicial oversight—all of which are missing in the FT framework. The FTs in Assam operate in stark violation of these principles of fair trial and equality of arms, with systemic flaws denying individuals basic safeguards. Without adequate judicial oversight or the ability to respond on equal terms, the FT system fails to ensure juridical equality or prevent procedural imbalances. The denial of these rights not only violates procedural fairness but also jeopardises the fundamental rights of individuals subjected to these proceedings, leaving them without meaningful access to justice or an effective remedy. 3.5 Failing Self-Correction Mechanisms The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the FTs rests on the assumption that the Gauhati High Court, at the apex of this system, would ensure fairness and legality in FT proceedings. In principle, the High Court should act as a corrective force: establishing standards, addressing procedural violations, and providing redress when FTs fail to uphold due process. In practice, however, this promise remains unfulfilled. The High Court has fallen short on multiple fronts, enabling procedural deficiencies to persist and fairness to be compromised. A key role of the High Court is to correct legal violations that derogate from fair trial standards. Yet, as this report shows (see also Chapter 5), the Court has consistently failed to set or apply meaningful legal standards. Instead of establishing protections to safeguard rights, its rulings have allowed procedural deficiencies—such as inadequate notice of grounds for suspicion, absence of clear communication on evidentiary standards, and lack of State rebuttal—to remain unchecked, creating a legal vacuum that undermines fairness. This failure is closely tied to the High Court’s reliance on its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. Since Bahaluddin conferred exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship determination to FTs, individuals have been left without an ordinary appellate process and must seek redress through the High Court’s discretionary writ powers. Yet, certiorari, as a discretionary remedy, limits intervention to errors of law as defined by judges themselves—foreclosing correction of factual errors and requiring judges to distinguish between errors of fact and law. In the FT context, what constitutes an error of law has been left frustratingly unclear. 233 Abdullah Ahmad Hassouna (n 230) [195]. 77