4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process By contrast, the dominant approach of using age inconsistencies to discredit entire bodies of evidence is deeply flawed. It fails to appreciate: ● The known inaccuracy of voter roll ages. ● The absence of age verification mechanisms in such records. ● The broader socio-economic context in which these discrepancies arise. Furthermore, this practice reflects a troubling double standard: documents like passports or voter rolls are dismissed as unreliable when they support the defendant’s claim, but relied upon when they offer a basis for adverse findings. This selective reliance on evidence undermines the fairness of the process and erodes confidence in the integrity of citizenship adjudication. Ignoring Other Documents That Can Corroborate Evidence Defendants often submit documents such as Aadhaar cards, passports, PAN cards, ration cards, LIC policies, election photo identity cards, and special family identity cards to corroborate their citizenship claims or establish linkage with ancestors. Yet, these documents are routinely and summarily rejected on the ground that they are “not proof of citizenship.” This approach is puzzling, because while these documents may not independently establish citizenship, their value lies precisely in corroborating other evidence — a function that the tribunals and the Gauhati High Court have largely refused to consider. Take the case of Maharajan Nessa.418 Her father was included in the 1967 and 1970 Voter Rolls, but the only document linking her to him was her PAN card. Justice Manojit Bhuyan acknowledged that the PAN card was the only linkage document submitted, yet dismissed it as insufficient proof of citizenship. Simultaneously, her relatives’ oral testimonies were rejected for lacking detail and supporting documentation. Ultimately, she was declared a foreigner. Similarly, in the case of Md. Jonab Ali,419 the defendant submitted multiple documents — voter rolls, a gaonburah certificate, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID — along with the oral testimony of his father, Majom Ali. Despite this, Justice M.R. Pathak summarily discarded the PAN card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID on the ground that they do not prove citizenship. Further, the bench reasoned that since no officials from the issuing departments had been summoned and examined, the documents had no corroborative value. As a result, the FT’s declaration of Jonab Ali as a foreigner was upheld. This treatment reflects a deep-rooted suspicion, shaped by political anxieties in Assam that migrants can easily obtain official documents fraudulently. Such anxieties have fuelled a judicial posture in which documents are viewed as suspect — not for what they prove or corroborate, but for the fear that they might conceal illegality.420 Ironically, this stance is stricter than that adopted by the State 418 419 420 Maharjan Nessa v. Union of India WP(C) 3741/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 25 June 2019). Md. Jonab Ali @ Janeb Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 1859/2024 (Gauhati High Court, 19 December 2024). Bhat (n 21) 4869. 127