5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court These contrasting rulings suggest that medical evidence was not genuinely decisive in either case. The absence of proof was highlighted in one case, but ignored when present in the other. This inconsistency reveals that such standards often serve as superficial rationalisations rather than genuine guides for decision-making. The result is a pattern of arbitrary judgments, where outcomes are untethered from the very standards courts purport to apply. 5.2 Writ Petitions Against Contested Cases Breakdown of non-ex parte cases No. of contested cases Dismissed Remanded Direction to police to refer the case Quashed Clubbed FT cases Other 637 476 45 62 16 3 35 This subsection examines a second set of cases adjudicated by the Gauhati High Court— writ petitions challenging FT decisions where individuals appeared and actively contested the proceedings. Much like writ petitions against ex parte orders, these cases expose a troubling absence of clear legal standards, consistent judicial reasoning, and meaningful guidance for the FT system. There is a pattern of inconsistent application of evidentiary standards by the High Court, further highlighting the arbitrary and opaque nature of citizenship determinations. The Court has failed to establish coherent, stable standards for evaluating evidence, leaving FT members, lawyers, and defendants without a reliable framework. This has produced unpredictable, contradictory outcomes that undermine the integrity of citizenship adjudication. The lack of clarity strikes at the core of the citizenship determination process, raising serious 150 constitutional concerns about fairness, due process, and the reliability of judicial review. The evidence points to decisions that are often arbitrary, lacking transparency, and at times seemingly shaped by considerations outside the legal record.