4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process itself: documents like PAN and ration cards were accepted as valid linkage documents for the purposes of the 2019 NRC.421 Notably, the legal basis for this judicial posture is dubious. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in Uttam Ghosh v. Union of India,422 rightly observed that while PAN cards and Aadhaar cards are not proof of citizenship, they can and should be relied upon to corroborate a defendant’s claim. Yet, during the period under review, such documents were routinely dismissed by the Gauhati High Court without any meaningful engagement. Even more troubling is the selective reliance on these documents. When they favour the defendant, they are rejected as irrelevant or insufficient. But when they present any inconsistency, they are seized upon to undermine the entire case. For example, in the case of Abdul Aziz Sheikh,423 Justice B.P. Katakey used a discrepancy between the birth year in his passport (1913) and the age recorded in the 1965 Voter Roll (40 years) to infer that they were not the same person. The passport, though dismissed as insufficient proof when supporting the claim, became the basis for drawing an adverse inference. Similarly, in Joyful Bibi’s case,424 Justice Ujjal Bhuyan focused on an age inconsistency between her father’s Electoral Photo Identity Certificate (which suggested he was born in 1947) and his alleged inclusion in the 1951 NRC. The judge reasoned that if her father was indeed born in 1947, he would have been only four in 1951 and should have been included in the NRC — a conclusion that ignored both the known unreliability of age data in such documents and the broader corroborative context. 128 Another troubling pattern is the blanket exclusion of post-1971 documents.425 There is no legal basis for the automatic rejection of documents created after 1971. Justice P. J. Saikia, in Idrish Ali v. Union of India, recognised that it is improper for tribunals to reject such evidence solely for being post1971.426 Nevertheless, the FTs and the High Court have continued to do so. Furthermore, claims are often rejected because the written statement or the evidence does not name all possible relatives. For example, Mazibar Rahman did not mention his mother in his written statement, though she was present in the 1966 Voter Roll.427 Similarly, Usharani Biswas’ written statement omitted her brother’s name, though he had testified before the tribunal.428 In Haidar Ali v. Union of India,429 Justice N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that evidence cannot be disbelieved merely because it does not name all relatives — the focus should be on proving lineage to a parent or grandparent. The absence of other names might weaken a case, but cannot justify outright rejection. 421 ‘What Are Admissible Documents?’ (Office of the State Coordinator of National Registration (NRC), Assam) <https://nrcassam.nic.in/ admissible_documents.html> accessed 26 June 2025. 422 Uttam Ghosh (n 405) [33], [44]. 423 Abdul Matali (n 395). 424 Joyful Bibi (n 368). 425 Rekha Das v. Union of India WP(C) 7789/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 26 April 2018); Abdur Rashid v. Union of India WP(C) 7413/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 27 September 2018); Musstt. Sahara Begum (n 376). 426 Idrish Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 4116/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 27 February 2020). 427 Majibar Rahman v. Union of India WP(C) 5287/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 7 September 2016). 428 Usharani Biswas (n 263). 429 Haidar Ali (n 297).