4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process In some cases, the High Court has disregarded personal knowledge entirely, insisting instead on contemporaneous records to corroborate the testimony.376 According to the Court, such a record may be in the form of a village register containing a description of married persons based on which certificates may be issued,377 which are non-existent in practice. Guidelines by the Assam Government for issuing GP Certificates explicitly state that certificates should be based on evidence presented by the defendants, with no requirement for contemporaneous records.378 Even the High Court, in an order passed by Justice K.R. Surana acknowledged that village-level functionaries are not required by law to maintain a register of villagers.379 Yet, the High Court continues to impose this unattainable burden, demanding records that were never meant to exist. For example, in one case,380 a Gaonburah candidly testified that he does not maintain birth or death records and thus could not confirm a defendant’s birthdate. The absence of a contemporaneous record was nonetheless used to reject the certificate. This reasoning disregards local administrative realities and undermines the value of personal knowledge as valid evidence. 4.2.11 Dealing with Discrepancies Discrepancies in details such as name, age, or address commonly arise when different pieces of evidence are read together. Yet, the Gauhati High Court has often treated such inconsistencies as fatal, driven by a pervasive culture of suspicion. This suspicion is reflected in judicial comments that “it is very easy to pick up any name so as to claim to be one’s own and then refer to his father, grandfather…as his own.”381 As a result, even minor mismatches are interpreted as proof that identity 118 has not been established.382 This rigid approach disregards the realities of how documents are prepared and the lived experience of many in Assam, where it is common for individuals to possess more than one name or for variations to occur across records. It also conflicts with settled law, which holds that evidence should not be discarded solely due to discrepancies. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against attaching undue significance to contradictions, describing such an approach as unrealistic. Instead, the nature and materiality of discrepancies must be examined, and evidence assessed as a whole to see if it carries a ring of truth. Judicial analysis must account for the context in which records were created, 376 Joynab Bibi (n 367); Anowar Hussain v. Union of India WP(C) 6527/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 20 March 2018); Musstt. Sahara Begum @ Sahara Khatoon WP(C) 4173/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 22 February 2018); Rahima Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 4892/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 11 September 2019); Alaluddin (n 369); Romila Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 3807/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 8 June 2018); Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 6283/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 22 May 2018); Hasina Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 6752/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 27 August 2019); Md. Sayed Ali (n 372); Sona Bhanu Begum @ Sona Bhanu WP(C) 6589/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 9 November 2018); Jyotsna Das v. Union of India WP(C) 6638/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 26 November 2018); Khalilur Rahman (n 372); Tejiran Nessa (n 372); Jalaluddin (n 372); Sohrab Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 1991/2016; Musstt. Joynob Bibi @ Begum WP(C) 6677/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 16 May 2018). 377 Rahima Khatun (n 376). 378 Monowara Bewa (n 356) [43.7]. 379 Rahima Khatun (n 376). 380 Md. Chabu Ali v. State of Assam WP(C) 3602/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 30 November 2016). 381 Hussain Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 6053/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 21 December 2012). 382 Sampurna Das, ‘Living with “Thin” Documents: A Note on Identity Documents and Liminal Citizenship in the Chars of Assam, India’ (2024) 50 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 4891; Baruah (n 21); Amnesty International India (n 21).