2. Institutionalised Arbitrariness Similarly, the integrity of the reappointment process is compromised due to executive involvement. In Ashim Kumar Baruah v. State of Assam,133 the Gauhati High Court held that tenure extensions depend on performance, suitability, and periodic assessment by the High Court. However, no norms were set for such assessments. Moreover, no safeguards were put in place to ensure that the executive is not involved in preparing the preparatory material for these reviews. Despite the Court’s assertion that the High Court alone would conduct these reviews, in 2021 the Judicial, Home, and Political Departments assessed 100 Members,134 placing them at the mercy of the executive. No public record shows meaningful High Court involvement in these decisions. Reports suggest bias in these assessments. A former Member alleged termination because of the low percentage of people he declared foreigners, despite a high disposal rate, while others with lower disposal rates were retained for declaring more people foreigners.135 See FT Member Appraisal 2017’ below). In 2020, the Assam Government unilaterally terminated a Member, citing “unbecoming conduct,” without disciplinary proceedings.136 Finally, being a contractual appointment with no specified removal process, there is risk of arbitrary termination mid-contract. In 2020, the Assam Government arbitrarily removed an FT Member for donating to the COVID-19 fund with a rider on how his money should be disbursed. Finding his conduct to be “unbecoming” of a Member, the Assam Government released him from his services without any disciplinary proceedings or judicial involvement.137 In 2019, 221 additional Members were appointed on one-year contracts. In 2021, the Assam Government abruptly terminated their services, citing future consideration only “once the NRC is notified”—despite no mention of the NRC in the original recruitment notification. These terminations, now under challenge in the Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court, were based on executive decisions, not disciplinary processes or judicial assessments.138 They expose the lack of safeguards against executive interference in the removal process and the absence of security of tenure for FT Members. 135 Poonam Agarwal, ‘Assam NRC | Lost Job as I Declared Fewer Foreigners: Ex-Officer’ (The Quint, 6 October 2020) <https://www.thequint. com/news/india/nrc-former-judicial-officer-of-assams-foreigners-tribunals-interview> accessed 2 July 2025; ‘Assam Decides Tribunal Member’s Term on Rate of Declaring Foreigners: Amnesty’ The Hindu (12 March 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/otherstates/assam-decides-tribunal-members-term-on-rate-of-declaring-foreigners-amnesty/article31051919.ece> accessed 2 July 2025. (See ‘FT Member Appraisal 2017’ below) 136 ‘Assam Govt. Removes Foreigners’ Tribunal Member’ The Hindu (24 May 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/ foreigners-tribunal-member-removed/article31666251.ece> accessed 2 July 2025. 137 ibid. 138 Rojer Mathew (n 111) [165]. 53