4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process Rejection Based on Use of State Emblem FTs also routinely dismiss Gaon Panchayat or Gaonburah Certificates bearing the state emblem, claiming that such use is illegal as per the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005,361 and therefore the entire document is inadmissible as evidence. However, even if their use of the emblem is unauthorized, this would, at most, render the document irregular, not inadmissible.362 Yet, the High Court has upheld this flawed reasoning, further undermining fair trial standards.363 These deviations from ordinary evidentiary norms, including the disregard of statutory presumptions and the imposition of excessive proof requirements, severely compromise procedural fairness in citizenship determinations. They highlight an urgent need for reform to restore alignment with established evidentiary principles and safeguard the integrity of adjudication. Proving the Genuineness and Authorship of Documents in Citizenship Proceedings Proving the authenticity of documents is central to fair adjudication. Under Indian evidence law, authorship can be established through direct testimony, circumstantial evidence, or by examining witnesses familiar with the author’s handwriting or the document’s creation.364 The law emphasises flexibility—authorship need only be linked to the purported author through credible means.365 Yet, the practices of the FTs and the jurisprudence of the Gauhati High Court depart sharply from these principles, imposing rigid evidentiary demands that undermine procedural fairness and burden defendants unfairly. The High Court has consistently insisted that certificates must be proven solely through testimony from the issuing authority, corroborated by contemporaneous records such as issue registers. Absent such testimony, tribunals routinely dismiss documents with boilerplate findings: “...cannot be said to be proved as the issuing authority did not testify before the tribunal on the basis of contemporaneous record to prove not only…certificate but also the contents thereof.”366 This rigid approach disregards lawful alternatives for proving authorship, such as circumstantial evidence or witnesses acquainted with the author’s handwriting or the document’s making. The insistence on a narrow method of proof has, in practice, foreclosed these options altogether. 361 State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005, s 3. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. See Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. (2013) 10 SCC 59 [35]; R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471 [24], [25], [27]. 363 Smti. Bela Rani Devi @ Debnath v. Union of India WP(C) 5852/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 10 May 2018); Salema Khatun v. State of Assam WP(C) 7629/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 5 June 2018); Jalekha Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 7919/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 27 March 2019); Khudeja Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 2889/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 13 May 2019); Dulal Uddin v. Union of India WP(C) 1197/2020 (Gauhati High Court, 4 June 2020); Najrul Islam v. Union of India WP(C) 4775/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 4 November 2019); Aroti Bala Mandal v. Union Of India WP(C) 7643/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 6 December 2018); Sultana Begum v. Union of India Review.Pet. 1352/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 30 May 2019). 364 Indian Evidence Act 1872, ss 45, 47, 67. 365 Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay 1957 SCC OnLine SC 46 [11]; Gulzar Ali v. State of H.P. (1998) 2 SCC 192 [9], [11]. 366 Anowara Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 6190/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 4 October 2018); Sufiya Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 3611/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 19 July 2019); Basiran Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 3711/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 16 August 2019); Gulagjan Bibi @ Gulabjan Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 300/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 25 August 2017); Jamiran Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 6202/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 26 April 2018); Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 6090/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 15 March 2018). 362 115