2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) of the FT should ensure that due process is adhered to, the analysis in this article suggests that this is not the case. 139 The framework of adjudication by FTs is not able to keep up with the promise of effective adjudication under the Constitution. In a damning report, Amnesty International has concluded that FTs in Assam are ‘Designed to Exclude’. 140 While such a conclusion implies an intention to exclude (‘designed’) — a contention that may be difficult to establish — the significant shortcomings outlined in this article go some way to establishing the legitimacy of this conclusion. What can be concluded with more certainty is that if, as widely expected, there is a nationwide roll-out of the NRC, such that similar FTs are replicated everywhere else in India, there is a genuine risk of very large numbers of persons being rendered stateless. There is clearly an urgent need for academic scrutiny of all aspects of the citizenship verification process in India. This article has provided the first comprehensive scrutiny of the procedural shortcomings. It is hoped that much more academic scrutiny will be applied to all aspects — substantive and procedural — of this unfolding human rights crisis. 139 Constitution (n 43) art 21 provides: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law’. See also Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248 (Supreme Court of India) [7]: The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be ‘right and just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. 140 See Designed to Exclude (n 91). 137