5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Rather than mitigating the injustices embedded in the FT process, the High Court’s interventions have: ● Entrenched FT deficiencies: The Court’s rulings have reinforced, rather than corrected procedural and substantive flaws in the Tribunal system. ● Failed to establish guiding principles: The Court has not articulated clear or consistent standards for adjudicating citizenship, leaving decisions opaque and arbitrary. ● Deepened systemic problems: Writ jurisdiction has not operated as a check on the system’s failures; instead, it has exacerbated them. ● Enabled unchecked discretion and inconsistency: Decisions are often unreasoned, conflict with similar cases, and reflect ad hoc, improvised standards. ● Undermined procedural fairness: The cumulative effect is a deeply flawed system that erodes the right to due process and fair trial in a constitutionally vital area of adjudication. This systemic failure has far-reaching implications, further undermining the integrity, transparency, and fairness that must lie at the heart of any process determining citizenship status. 5.1 Ex Parte Decisions by the Gauhati High Court An important area of concern is the writ petitions challenging ex parte decisions by the FTs. The Gauhati High Court ostensibly applies the “sufficient cause” standard to decide whether such decisions should be reversed, remanded, or upheld. As discussed in §4.2.5, the Court has construed “sufficient cause” narrowly—requiring the cause to be beyond the litigant’s control and showing that the litigant took all reasonable steps to avoid non-appearance. 138