3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial Moreover, advocates reported consistent refusals from FT members to summon inquiry officers for cross-examination, effectively shielding questionable investigation practices from scrutiny. According to Advocate N, despite requests, Tribunal members refrain from summoning officers, with some members expressing prejudicial views about certain communities. He recalled a member openly stating in court, “All Muslims are Bangladeshis… whatever documents you produce, we will make you Bangladeshi.” Such statements cast a troubling light on the attitudes influencing FT rulings and underscore a system where procedural fairness is neither valued nor upheld. Tribunal members’ refusal to follow fair procedures extends to denying defendants access to key documents, further undermining the burden-shifting framework. Advocate MR noted that although some FTs allow certified copies of police inquiry reports, many others deny access altogether or demand a High Court order to obtain a copy. Without these records, it becomes virtually impossible for defendants to contest their cases effectively. “Without a certified copy, one cannot approach the High Court,” MR remarked, illustrating how procedural opacity blocks avenues for redress. 73 In many cases, the absence of government pleaders during FT hearings has resulted in members assuming dual roles as both adjudicator and prosecutor, violating principles of natural justice. Advocate SA highlighted instances where FT members took over the examination of witnesses, conducting cross-examinations themselves and posing as representatives of the State. “In this case, the Government Pleader was absent and so the Tribunal member himself put all the questions,” he observed. The systemic absence of government pleaders shifts the burden entirely onto the defendant, undermining the concept of fair rebuttal by the State and effectively collapsing the adversarial process into a one-sided adjudication. The reliance on a fixed burden of proof on the defendant renders the “shifting onus” concept set out in Sonowal I practically meaningless. When asked whether the burden ever shifts to the State, Advocate SA explained, “The member does not ask…the persuasive burden is assumed to be on the proceedee.” As a result, State officials are not required to demonstrate the legitimacy of their claims, while Tribunal members often refrain from asking questions or pressing the State to present corroborative evidence, even when doubts about the defendant’s evidence arise. The experiences recounted by advocates expose a systematic departure from the procedural safeguards envisioned in Supreme Court rulings. The FT process, as currently practised, does not fulfil the Court’s mandate for a burden-shifting mechanism that promotes fairness. Instead, the absence of accountability for State actors, combined with the FT’s reluctance to critically assess inquiry reports (see §4.1), has fostered a system where procedural deficits compound, stripping defendants of their fundamental right to a fair hearing. These testimonies underscore the urgent need for reforms to ensure that the FTs operate with transparency, fairness, and due regard for judicial standards. Without addressing these foundational issues, the FT process remains a far cry from the equitable system envisaged by the Supreme Court.