5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Reasons assigned by defendants to explain their non-appearance. Illiteracy/ignorance Deemed to not be a special/exceptional circumstance. Illiteracy and ignorance of the legal procedure, so failed to appear.453 Defendant was cheated by someone who claimed to be an employee of the Tribunal and promised to settle the case on payment of money.454 Defendant was ignorant of legal procedure and thought that submission of WS was enough. Did not know he had to prove documents.455 Defendant was illiterate and her husband was taking care of proceedings on her behalf; after his death, she was ignorant of how to continue.456 Improper service of notice Defendant had actually received the notice with signature.457 Defendant left her marital house. Relocated to Arunachal Pradesh.458 Notice was served on adult son who did not disclose it. Defendant had been working elsewhere.459 The supposed legal standard for setting aside ex parte orders is also applied inconsistently. In some cases, multiple conflicting standards are invoked within the same order, leaving it unclear which rationale was decisive. For instance, pleas based on improper service of notice were rejected both for failing to meet the “special/exceptional” threshold and for being factually implausible—without clarifying which ground governed the outcome. In other cases, the Court appears to abandon legal standards altogether, defaulting to vague notions like deciding in the “interest of justice.” This phrase is deployed without explanation or objective criteria, offering no guidance on what litigants must do to satisfy it. Notably, 12.7% of writ petitions citing illness succeeded not because the sufficient cause standard was met, but because they were allowed “in the interest of justice.” Similarly, writ petitions challenging technically valid notice service were sometimes granted on this nebulous basis, reinforcing the impression of arbitrary discretion. 144 Such hollow invocations of legal terminology create the illusion of reasoned decision-making where none exists. They reveal a lack of judicial rigour—both in defining legal standards and in applying them faithfully to the facts. 453 Tara Bhanu v. Union of India WP(C) 4930/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 30 August 2013); Md. Abdul Subhan v. Union of India WP(C) 4953/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 17 February 2014); Anukul Das v. Union of India WP(C) 7524/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 14 December 2015). 454 Md Nurul Islam v. Union of India WA 64/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 17 May 2017). 455 Abdul Matin v. Union of India WP(C) 5609/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 25 March 2013). 456 Kalpana Das (n 312). 457 Mustt. Rahima Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 4116/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 5 November 2015); Atobjan Bibi @ Atarjan Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 7409/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 13 December 2016); Islamuddin Ali @ Islamuddin v. Union of India WP(C) 6142/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 23 November 2015). 458 Morzina Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 7372/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 8 December 2016). 459 Md. Alimuddin v. Union of India WP(C) 1118/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 1 March 2017).