4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process The report identifies three types of rights violations that are overlapping and mutually reinforcing, yet analytically distinct. First Rights violations resulting from problematic norms laid down by higher courts. Several norms in judgments by the Supreme Court and Gauhati High Court fail to align with due process and fair trial principles. These norms often introduce standards that either increase the burden on individuals disproportionately or fail to ensure adequate safeguards. Second Rights violations resulting from the FTs not complying with norms that are mentioned in law or laid down by higher courts. As documented below, despite clear directives from the higher judiciary, the FTs often fail to serve notice properly, deny individuals a meaningful opportunity to respond, or pass orders without following even basic procedural safeguards. Such violations are not merely isolated lapses but systemic failures that compromise the legitimacy of the entire adjudication process. Third Failures of higher courts to address violations of rights. These are distinct from the first category of violations. Rather than arising from wrongful standards, these violations result from the inability—or unwillingness—of superior courts to recognize systemic violations by officials in the FT system, including the Border Police and FT members. In many cases, the Gauhati High Court has not laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure adherence to correct procedural norms. It has inadequately adjudicated claims of procedural violations, either dismissing them as routine pleas or failing to scrutinise the materials on record effectively (see Chapter 5). This judicial laxity exacerbates the procedural failures and leaves affected individuals without meaningful recourse. This chapter focuses primarily on the first and second categories of violations, before the initiation of status determination proceedings in the FTs and during the FT proceedings. The third category 88 of violations—resulting from the inaction of Gauhati High Court by either not laying down standards, keeping them under or undefined, or systematically overlooking their violations—will be taken up comprehensively in the next chapter (Chapter 5). The cumulative effect of these violations is the erosion of basic principles of justice in FT proceedings. By replacing reasonable procedural expectations with arbitrary and onerous ones, these practices disregard the broader implications of citizenship determination, trivialising its constitutional significance. This not only undermines the individuals subjected to these proceedings but also reflects poorly on the integrity of the adjudicative process itself.