The Transnational Human Rights Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2021], Art. 1 apprehensions of bias.135 When this was brought to his notice over an Application that sought his recusal from future hearings, not only did he reject the Application and struck off the Applicant’s name from a connected petition, but also admonished the GoI over its failure to commence deportations which was not even an issue in the first place.136 In 2019, the same Bench clarified that the Assam case was an exception that although citizenship could be traced back to either parent, descendants whose one parent had been found to be a citizen, and the other marked as a DV, or had a pending case against them, would nevertheless be categorized as a foreigner.137 In doing so, it also conflated the position of a DV (whose citizenship is only contested) with an illegal migrant (whose case might have been adjudged). The procedures before the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) likewise, fail all procedural safeguards. They are opaque and lack uniformity. FTs are quasi-judicial bodies which use summary procedures allowing 10 days to a suspect to reply, 10 days to present evidence, and a 60 day period within which they must dispose of cases. 138 They are free to decide what procedures, including rules of evidence, they should adopt, again allowing them excessive discretion in appreciating evidence. 139 They are presided upon by advocates, judges, retired civil servants and even contractual staffers. This detail too was submitted at the Supreme Court’s disposal. Curiously, the position was taken that prior to its operation, a two day procedural training would be enough for the staff.140 They have also been vested with the powers to overhear appeals and the Assam High Court has previously refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction through self-imposed restrictions, except on Apoorva Mandhani, “Why CJI Gogoi is Under Fire For Defending Assam’s NRC While It’s Still Sub-Judice”, The Print (6 November 2019), online: <https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/why-cji-gogoi-is-under-fire-fordefending-assams-nrc-while-its-still-sub-judice/316032/>. 136 Application for the case is available here: "We Will Not Allow Any One To Disrupt The Institution", CJI Refused To Recuse From Hearing Assam Detention Centre Case, Instead Removes Harsh Mander From Petitioner's Place”, LiveLaw (2 May 2019), online: <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-dismisses-harsh-mandars-pleaseeking-recusal-of-cji-144713>. 137 Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 274/2009 (Order dated 13 August 2019) online: <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135202420/>. The decision clearly runs against s. 3 of the Citizenship Act. 138 FT Orders 1964, clauses 2, 3(8) and 3(14). 139 FT (Orders) 1964, s 3A (17), 10 and 17 and accompanying amendments through the MHA Order GSR409 (E) dated 30 May 2019. 140 In its 30 May, 2019 submission to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General himself placed before the Court’s disposal, information regarding the operation of 200 FTs and selection criteria for people to be staffed there. The staff would include advocates aged 35 and above who have practiced for 7 years, retired Judicial officers and retired Civil servants. See, Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 274/2009 (Order dated 20 May 2019) online: <http://nrcassam.nic.in/pdf/16113_2009_1_1_14590_Order_30-May-2019.pdf>. 135 https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/thr/vol8/iss1/1 DOI: 10.60082/2563-4631.1096 24