4. Violations of Natural Justice and the Right of Due Process The High Court’s approach demonstrates a contradictory and fundamentally flawed evidentiary standard: ● Documents that could provide corroborative value are ignored when they support the defendant. ● The same documents are used selectively to highlight inconsistencies and discredit the claim. ● Documents are rejected for reasons that have no basis in law (e.g., post-1971 creation). ● The unrealistic expectation that all possible relatives must be named or that issuing authorities must appear for cross-examination further burdens already vulnerable litigants. The result is a process that systematically disregards or misuses evidence, rendering it almost impossible for many defendants to prove their citizenship, no matter how much or what kind of evidence they produce. Not Reading Documentary and Oral Evidence Together A fair adjudication requires that documentary and oral evidence be read together. Testimonies provide crucial context for understanding documents, clarifying ambiguities, and filling gaps. However, the FTs and the Gauhati High Court have consistently failed to integrate these sources of evidence, treating them in isolation instead of as complementary parts of a coherent narrative. Consider Sahera Khatun’s case.430 Her parents, Achan Ulla and Amatan Nessa, were listed alongside her brother Mohammad Ali in the 1966 and 1970 Voter Rolls. Lacking a direct linkage document, Mohammad Ali’s testimony was vital. He testified that he had voted with their father in 1966 — an uncontroverted statement. When read together with the voter roll, this testimony should have sufficed: if Mohammad Ali was indeed her brother, and he was Achan Ulla’s son as recorded in the 1966 Voter Roll, this would establish Sahera’s linkage to a pre-1971 voter. Yet, Justice Manojit Bhuyan dismissed the testimony on the trivial ground that Mohammad Ali’s name did not appear in Sahera’s written statement. This rejection disregarded the probative value of unchallenged oral evidence that, when read with the documents, formed a coherent chain supporting Sahera’s citizenship claim. In Jahura Khatun’s case,431 the Gaon Panchayat Secretary issued a certificate, based on documents such as the patta (land deed) and 1966 voter list, and deposed in support of Jahura’s claim. However, Justice M.R. Pathak dismissed the certificate on the vague assertion that the Secretary’s evidence “failed to inspire confidence.” The judgment failed to explain why the Secretary’s testimony 430 431 Sahera Khatun @ Sahera Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 3602/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 7 August 2019). Jahura Khatun v. Union of India WP(C) 364/2021 (Gauhati High Court, 4 October 2024). 129