an FT, as well as the outcome of this process - with minorities in Assam negatively affected. Due to long-standing anti-Bengali sentiment and the framing of the Assam Accord, Bengali speakers are more likely to be proceeded against, while certain other linguistic groups, like Nepali speakers of the Gorkha community, enjoy greater safeguards from and in most cases complete exemptions from citizenship determination proceedings.34 By virtue of an exemption order passed in 2015 under the Foreigners Act, 1946,35 non-Muslims from Bangladesh who entered India prior to 31 December 2014 can raise a claim of religious persecution and be exempted from any action under the Act. Though successfully relied on in some recent cases, 36 this provision has not yet been widely resorted to since most persons who face citizenship determination proceedings are born in Assam. However, the exemption has created a potential route for Bengali Hindus (but not Muslims) who are refugees to claim protection from being declared a foreigner. As a result, the citizenship regime in Assam is discriminatory and disproportionately impacts already vulnerable minorities. 23. These issues are exacerbated by the operation of the FTs, of which there are now 300 in Assam, following a rapid expansion over the last couple of years. The FTs conduct summary trials, with no uniform procedure: instead, each FT is free to evolve their own procedure, resulting in significant variation. Standards for admissibility and appreciation of evidence are framed in a hyper-technical manner, with minor inconsistencies in spellings of names across documentation being a common reason for rejection. These tribunals fail to meet many fundamental due process requirements including: no requirement of charges being framed; denial of fair disclosure; no shifting onus of proof; denial of right to seek requisition of public documents and summoning of public witnesses; denial of the right to be heard; and passing of ex parte decisions against individuals. Individuals declared as ‘foreigners’ by an FT have a limited right to seek review of the decision in a writ for grant of certiorari, which is a very narrowly framed jurisdiction, under which courts cannot look into questions of fact or evidence. Further, FT members are appointed by contract and are not insulated from interference by the executive. A report by Amnesty India revealed that the Assam government gave poor performance reviews to members whose overall case completion rate was good, but who, in terms of outcomes, had held a fair number of persons as Indian citizens. These members were dismissed from service for not holding enough people as “foreigners”. 37 It was only in 2018 that the Gauhati High Court (the highest court in Assam) clarified that performance reviews were to be conducted by the High Court and not the executive 34 Indira Newar v. Union of India, Judgement of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8490/2018 dated 29 November 2019 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6334197/ . See also Extra Ordinary Gazette notification of Government of India Part 1, Section-1, Date 23rd August 1988, No. 26011/6/88-IC.I; Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division) Notification dated 24.09.2018 and Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Note dated 10 October 2018 available at https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/PressreleaseNEPAL_11102018_0.pdf . See also “Gorkhas of Assam Laud Dropping of Foreigners' Tribunal Cases, Want D-voter Tag Gone“ News18, (5 August 2021), available at https://www.news18.com/news/india/gorkhas-of-assam-laud-dropping-of-foreigners-tribunal-cases-want-d-voter-tag-gone4049243.html 35 Notification dated 07.09.2015 bearing G.S.R. 686(E) amended the Foreigners Order, 1950 to exempt the following class from the Foreigners Act, 1946: “Persons belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before the 31st December, 2014.” 36 For example, see Mangla Das v. Union of India, Judgement of the Gauhati High Court in Review Petition No. 73/2021 dated 04.09.2021, available at https://parichayblog.org/tag/caa/ 37 ”Designed to Exclude,“ Report by Amnesty International India, at page 28, available at https://www.amnesty.be/IMG/pdf/rapport_inde.pdf 8