5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Introduction This chapter offers a critical examination of the Gauhati High Court’s role in adjudicating citizenship status determinations arising from decisions of the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). Through an in-depth analysis of High Court orders, we uncover a troubling and consistent pattern of rulings that expose both systemic and systematic failures in citizenship adjudication. These findings point not only to deep weaknesses in the High Court’s approach but also to its role in perpetuating the deficiencies of the FT system itself. The Gauhati High Court has often imposed standards of proof and procedure that are excessively onerous—far beyond what fairness or constitutional due process would require. This has placed an unfair and often insurmountable burden on litigants seeking to establish their citizenship. As explored in detail in Chapter 4, these standards fall short of both constitutionally and internationally mandated norms of natural justice. In this chapter, we demonstrate that the High Court’s selective and inconsistent application of these heightened standards systematically amplifies the burden on individuals, without sufficient regard for the life-altering consequences of a citizenship determination. A recurring concern is the Court’s rigid, “one-size-fits-all” framework for decision-making. This straitjacketed approach ignores the social, cultural, and personal contexts that are critical for fair adjudication. It transforms what should be a fact-sensitive process into a mechanical and decontextualised exercise. In doing so, it fails to account for the realistic expectations and lived conditions of individuals in Assam’s specific socio-cultural landscape. Effective adjudication in citizenship cases demands sensitivity to these factual nuances—something the Court has repeatedly failed to show. Most concerning is the evidence of an unchecked regime of discretion reflected in the High Court’s decisions, which has perpetuated and deepened the issues already prevalent within the FT process. The writ jurisdiction, far from serving as a safeguard or corrective to the shortcomings of the FTs— including arbitrariness, bias, and lack of expertise—has itself become a site of systemic failure. Instead of clarifying the legal standards and laying down a transparent and guiding doctrine for citizenship determinations, the High Court’s decisions have entrenched the deficiencies of the FT system. Its rulings are marked by lack of clear reasoning, inconsistency with precedent, and ad hoc approaches that foster uncertainty and undermine procedural integrity. 135