5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court This judgment represents a significant and problematic departure from established precedent. The High Court’s approach disregards the binding directives of Moslem Mondal and Justice Kotiswar Singh’s verdict in Anjana Biswas v. Union of India, which make clear that a Tribunal’s jurisdiction depends on a valid inquiry and referral grounded in material evidence. The imposition of a new, extra-legal requirement of “proceedee cooperation” shifts the focus from the State���s duty to conduct lawful proceedings to the alleged conduct of the individual, in effect excusing defective or nonexistent inquiries. Moreover, by distinguishing a constitutional norm (under Article 21) from a statutory obligation (under the IMDT Act) to justify weaker procedural protections, the Court undermines the very purpose of Article 21 safeguards, which exist to constrain State power in life-altering determinations like citizenship. The Asmita Khatun judgment illustrates how the High Court has enabled the erosion of procedural safeguards by authorising proceedings without lawful basis and by introducing burdens on litigants that have no foundation in law. Rather than quashing proceedings initiated without jurisdiction, the Court has created extra-legal justifications for sustaining them, thereby deepening the crisis of due process in FT adjudication. In Mohammad Ali (2025),545 the defendant challenged the legality of proceedings initiated against him under the Foreigners Act, specifically questioning the validity of the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border). Mohammad Ali argued that the SP(B) had no lawful basis to make the reference, as the designated inquiry officer had already found him to be an Indian citizen by birth. The inquiry report contained clear findings supported by documentary evidence, including legacy documents that demonstrated his father’s pre-1971 residence in Assam. Under binding precedent—particularly Moslem Mondal, Anjana Biswas, and other rulings of the Gauhati High Court—a Foreigners Tribunal’s jurisdiction arises only when the referral authority has applied its mind to the evidence gathered during a lawful inquiry and determined, on the basis of that material, that there are sufficient grounds to doubt the individual’s citizenship status. The SP(B), as the referring authority under Clause 2 of the FT Order 1964, is bound to assess the materials collected by the inquiry officer and can issue a reference only if convinced that a case for proceeding exists. The inquiry report forms the very foundation of the FT’s jurisdiction: without a valid referral based on reasoned analysis of substantive material, the FT’s proceedings are vitiated. In this case, the SP(B) referred the matter to the FT despite the inquiry officer’s unequivocal finding that Mohammad Ali was an Indian citizen. The petitioner contended that this act represented a clear violation of established procedural safeguards, as the SP(B) failed to apply his independent mind to the evidence before initiating proceedings. The reference was thus jurisdictionally defective, and the FT’s subsequent declaration of foreigner status ought to have been quashed on that ground alone. 545 Mohammad Ali and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 3500/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 6 January 2025). 167