3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial This is particularly troubling because many writ petitions do disclose errors of law—especially errors of jurisdiction or improper exercise of jurisdiction (see Chapter 4, §4.1.3). Moreover, certiorari is not limited to correcting pure errors of law; it can also address errors of fact where findings are unsupported by evidence or admissible evidence has been overlooked (see Chapter 4, §4.2.10, 4.2.11, 4.2.12). Yet the High Court has declined to exercise this power. Its selective docket discretion results in fewer interventions on issues arising from preliminary investigations, while it engages more readily with other kinds of issues (see Chapter 4, §4.1.4). Worse still, the High Court has, at times, used their jurisdiction not to correct legal errors but to fill gaps in FT reasoning or reinterpret FT law to strengthen findings against defendants (see Chapter 5, §5.2). This self-defeating use of certiorari privileges outcomes aligned with the State’s coercive objectives, rather than safeguarding procedural justice. This inconsistency has also fostered unpredictability and undermined legal coherence. The result is a system in which due process violations go undetected, are dismissed as insignificant, or are acknowledged but not treated as serious errors of law warranting intervention. The Court’s misinterpretation of its jurisdiction has entrenched a regime where those accused of being foreigners face immense procedural obstacles in proving their citizenship. Without a robust appellate mechanism or meaningful judicial oversight, defendants are left navigating a legal framework where due process guarantees exist more in form than in function. In sum, the absence of appellate standards, combined with the High Court’s erratic use of certiorari, has exacerbated the legal vulnerability of defendants. They are subjected to arbitrary procedures and denied equal protection, left to contend with a legal “black hole” that contrasts starkly with the rights and remedies available in other domains of law. 3.6 Need for an Appellate and Judicious System Critically, the FT system offers no ordinary right of appeal to individuals contesting the determination of their citizenship—contravening basic principles of due process and effective remedy under international law. The primary recourse is through the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, most commonly by a petition for certiorari. This limited and discretionary pathway offers neither the procedural depth nor the substantive safeguards required for robust review. Compounding this is the jurisprudential legacy of Sonowal I, which invalidated the IMDT Act and its stronger procedural guarantees, thereby foreclosing more comprehensive appeal mechanisms. Together, these developments have undermined a core element of lawful adjudication: the right to appeal in cases where the stakes— loss of citizenship and potential statelessness—are existential. This absence of an appellate mechanism should be construed as a violation of the right to an effective remedy. Article 14(5) of the ICCPR explicitly recognizes this right in criminal cases, allowing 79