5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Grounds asserted by Defendants for NonAppearance at the FT Petition Dismissed FT Opinion Remanded Liberty to file application in the FT Other Total 33 75 1 0 135 Lawyer did not Discharge his Duties towards the Defendant 43 10 0 0 68 Illness 44 16 0 1 87 Lack of Legal Aid/ Representation 6 4 0 0 21 Illiteracy / Ignorance 48 8 0 0 77 Reason Not Stated in the Court Order 51 25 0 4 103 Other 25 29 0 1 65 Improper Service of Notice Our analysis of these cases reveals several troubling patterns. First, the High Court imposes an impractically high and undefined threshold. Its interpretation of “sufficient cause” demands defendants anticipate and exhaust an open-ended range of actions to prevent ex parte orders, without clarifying what those actions should be. This leaves defendants unable to discern how to meet the burden, turning the standard into a moving target. Second, the Court applies this standard without sensitivity to context. It imposes uniform expectations regardless of individual circumstances, undermining the protective purpose of the standard. In doing so, the Court disregards the need for a genuine opportunity to be heard—core to the guarantees of Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution. Third, the decisions reflect ad hoc reasoning. Similar fact patterns yield inconsistent outcomes, with no clear rationale for the divergence. The supposed standard does not guide outcomes; instead, decisions appear arbitrary, driven by judicial discretion rather than coherent legal principles. In effect, the “sufficient cause” standard provides neither guidance for FTs nor clarity for litigants. It fails to set actionable, predictable requirements, rendering it an empty exercise that neither safeguards due process nor informs litigants how to protect their rights. 139