4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process 4.2.1 Service of Notice Paragraph 3(1) of the FT Order, 1964, mandates that proceedings should only commence after serving the grounds of suspicion to the concerned individual, ensuring their right to a fair trial. Despite the importance of proper service, the Order originally did not prescribe specific procedures for serving notice. In Moslem Mondal, the Gauhati High Court addressed this lacuna by issuing guidelines for uniformity in serving notices.265 It held that notices must be personally served in English, Assamese, or Bodo, with the process server obtaining the thumb impression of the recipient as proof. These guidelines were later incorporated, with minor amendments, in the FT Order, 2013.266 While aligning broadly with the Code of Civil Procedure, some peculiar features of these rules, introduced by the Gauhati High Court, undermine the objective of ensuring individuals have a reasonable opportunity to respond. For instance, Moslem Mondal prescribes that individuals must inform the investigating agency before changing their address. If they cannot be located, notice can be served by pasting it at their last known residence.267 Effectively, the burden of tracking address changes is placed on the individual, not the investigating agency. This contrasts with the Code of Civil Procedure that requires the party initiating proceedings to ascertain the correct address before serving notice. Substituted service—affixing the notice to a conspicuous part of the premises—is permitted, but efforts have to be made to ensure that it is pasted at the updated address.268 This procedural imbalance has led to unfair outcomes, as individuals are expected to inform the agency of their movements even before being suspected of being a foreigner. For example, in Rabiya Bibi,269 notice was affixed to her previous residence, even though she had relocated before the proceedings began. Despite this, the FT deemed the service valid because she had not informed the agency of her new address. In fact, Justice Manojit Bhuyan held that Rabiya Bibi did not deserve another opportunity as her actions had clearly indicated that she had “evaded” from appearing before the tribunal.270 This verdict is clearly based on the assumption that Rabiya Bibi is a foreigner who deliberately relocated to avoid the notice she would have known was coming for her. The High Court dismissed her plea for reconsideration, effectively imposing an undue burden on Bengali-origin populations in Assam to constantly update government agencies as though they are presumed foreigners. These procedural norms overlook the reality of mobilities among the marginalised populations in Assam. Many poor and illiterate defendants live in the char (riverine island) areas, which are prone to frequent floods and erosion.271 As a result, they are forced to move frequently while notices from the FTs are sent to their old addresses. In one case documented by scholar Salah Punathil, a middle- 265 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [103]. Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order 2013. 267 Moslem Mondal (n 188) [103(vi)] 268 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order V rules 9, 17. 269 Rabiya Bibi v. Union of India WP(C) 6330/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 15 September 2018). 270 ibid 4. 271 Jharna Gogoi and Nazimuddin Siddique, ‘Flood, Displacement and Politics: The Assam Chapter’ (2023) 58 Economic and Political Weekly 1. 266 95