4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process In the absence of clear guidelines, FTs have adopted the practice of verifying names when notices are sent. However, lawyers often need to submit requests for such verification, and there remains a lack of clarity regarding what this verification process entails. This ad hoc approach underscores the systemic gaps in ensuring proper service of notice, leaving defendants vulnerable to procedural inconsistencies. Improperly serving notice further exacerbates these issues. The High Court has repeatedly emphasised that notices cannot be served by affixing them in public places, such as shops or river ghats, but such practices persist.276 Moreover, the FTs often pass orders deeming individuals untraceable after a single failed attempt at service, without attempting substituted service.277 These orders, though occasionally overturned, highlight the ineffectiveness of existing guidelines in ensuring that tribunals follow the law. The Gauhati High Court has also shown inconsistency in evaluating writ petitions challenging improper notice. In some cases, it has dismissed such pleas without verifying the materials on record, relying solely on observations in the tribunal’s order.278 This lack of uniformity and scrutiny trivialises the serious consequences of these proceedings, treating citizenship as something easily provable while disregarding the punitive outcomes that follow procedural lapses. These procedural failures in serving notice demonstrate the broader due process deficits within the FT system. The lack of clarity, uniformity, and adherence to basic principles of fairness undermines the defendants’ ability to defend themselves effectively, highlighting the systemic flaws that plague the adjudication of citizenship in Assam. 97 276 Bipula Das v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 3582 [5]; Kabir Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 7901/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 2 September 2021). 277 Dulal Goswami v. Union of India WP(C) 4616/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 19 August 2013); See also the FT orders in Mohibur Rahman v. Union of India WP(C) 1994/2019 (Gauhati High Court) and Bidhan Ch. Das v. Union of India WP(C) 3476/2017 (Gauhati High Court). 278 Smt. Mamta Sarkar v. Union of India WP(C) 609/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 9 February 2016); Birendra Biswas @ Bijen Biswas v. Union of India WP(C) 656/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 9 February 2016); Md. Ramjan Khan v. Union of India WP(C) 776/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 11 February 2016); Bithika Purkayastha @ Bithika Biswas v. Union of India WP(C) 1231/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 25 February 2016).