4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process aged Muslim woman was compelled to move due to such floods and consequently missed her FT proceedings. The case was decided ex parte and she spent the next ten years in detention before finally being released.272 There is also a lack of procedural clarity, particularly related to how proceedings should be transferred to the FTs. Proceedings may be transferred from the IMDT to the FT or between FTs. While some High Court rulings have directed that notice be re-sent in such cases, no formal guidelines exist, leaving individuals vulnerable to procedural uncertainty. For example, Manik Mazumder and Jainal Ali were both unaware of their cases being transferred and had not received notice from the new FTs, requiring judicial intervention.273 While the High Court did provide favourable remedies here, such ad hoc solutions underscore the systemic failure to address this recurring issue. The lack of clear procedural guidelines for service of notice is compounded by inconsistent judicial approaches. Difficulties in service of notice often arise when there is a mismatch between the particulars of the person to whom the notice is addressed and the person to whom it is attempted to be served. In such instances, the recipient may refuse the notice, claiming that the notice is not intended for them. Alternatively, the person being proceeded against may claim that the notice was never served on them due to errors in addressing or personal details. But, the High Court has not laid down meaningful guidelines to cover such cases. For instance, Justice Manojit Bhuyan, in two cases,274 remanded writ petitions where defendants argued that the notices contained incorrect details, such as errors in their relatives’ names. Although the cases were remanded “in the interest of justice”, no binding legal precedent was established regarding the proper course of action. Crucially, 96 when notices are acknowledged to have incorrect details, the proceedings should ideally be set aside as this reflects deficiencies in the preliminary investigation. In another case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declined to remand the case of Ushab Ali,275 who had refused a notice citing an incorrect address. The notice mentioned “Baladmari No. 3” instead of “Baladmari No. 2,” leading Ushab Ali to believe it was meant for another individual, also named Ushab Ali, who lived in Baladmari No. 3 and had previously been marked as a D-voter. The judge ruled that Ushab Ali did not deserve another opportunity as he was aware of the proceeding but refused to cooperate. He further asserted that there was “no iota of doubt” that the reference pertained to Ushab Ali, relying on an affidavit from the Superintendent of Police alleging that Ushab Ali had failed to provide documents during the inquiry. However, this conclusion is problematic in the absence of any evidence that inquiry had actually been conducted. Firstly, the affidavit was unreliable since neither the inquiry officer nor the Superintendent of the Police had been cross examined. Secondly, the address on the notice being incorrect raises legitimate doubts about whether Ushab Ali was even visited. At a minimum, the address in the inquiry report should have been verified to ascertain which house was visited. 272 Punathil (n 14) 62. Manik Mazumder @ Manik Chandra Mazumdar @ Manik Lal Mazumdar v. State of Assam WP(C) 5022/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 13 March 2014); Jainal Ali @ Jainal Abedin v. Union of India WP(C) 4821/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 9 September 2016). 274 Abul Kasem @ Abdul Kasem @ Kasem Ali @ Kasem Moulabi and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 7500/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 3 April 2019); Amiruddin v. Union of India WP(C) 3472/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 12 June 2019). 275 Md. Yusab Ali @ Ushab Ali @ Yusuf Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 4509/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 21 July 2016). 273