4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process 4.2.5 Challenging Ex Parte Orders In Moslem Mondal, the Gauhati High Court held that an ex parte order may be set aside if the litigant proves that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance—reasons beyond their control.314 In the same breath, the Court cautioned that such an application should not be entertained in a routine manner and should succeed only if the defendant could demonstrate the existence of a special or exceptional circumstance.315 Empirical Overview of Writ Petitions Against Ex Parte Orders (2009–2019) Between 2009 and 2019, 556 of the 1,193 Gauhati High Court orders analysed—nearly 47%—were writ petitions challenging ex parte declarations by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). Of these, 250 petitions (45%) were dismissed outright on merits, with the High Court upholding the ex parte declarations. In 167 cases (30%), the matters were remanded to the FTs for fresh adjudication. Another 132 cases (24%) were disposed off by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the FT, without any binding direction—placing the burden entirely on the discretion of the Tribunal to decide whether to re-admit the case. In 6 cases (1%), the Court issued directions that did not involve remand or liberty to apply, offering varied forms of relief. Strikingly, only 1 case out of 556 resulted in the High Court quashing the proceedings on the grounds of improper referral—a preliminary jurisdictional error. This pattern reveals a deeply constrained judicial approach: the Court has shown extreme reluctance to intervene even when procedural violations are apparent, reinforcing the sense that redress in ex parte cases is not governed by clear or generous legal standards, but by narrow and 103 inconsistently applied judicial discretion. Total Ex Parte Cases Petitions Dismissed Petitions Remanded to the FT Liberty to file application in the FT FT Opinion Quashed Others 556 250 167 132 1 6 314 315 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [92]. ibid.