5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Lack of Definitions in Successful Cases Even in cases where pleas succeeded, the High Court’s reasoning has failed to define how the “sufficient cause” standard was met. The decisions seem to turn on perceived merits rather than a principled application of the standard. ● In Sunil Ghosh’s case,439 Justice Hrishikesh Roy set aside the ex parte order, finding that Ghosh’s lawyer had abandoned him. But the decision offered no analysis of why this abandonment qualified as “sufficient cause” or how the situation was beyond Ghosh’s control. ● In Balen Ray’s case,440 psychiatric records showed he suffered from abnormal behaviour. Justice Manojit Bhuyan accepted this as a reason to set aside the ex parte order. Yet, he failed to clarify how undergoing psychiatric treatment constituted a “sufficient cause” for not managing the proceedings or arranging for someone else to handle them on Ray’s behalf. Although the documents justified Ray’s absence on specific dates, the essential question under the sufficient cause standard—whether the illness truly prevented him from fulfilling his obligations—was left unspecified. Thus, even where relief is granted, the Court fails to clarify the standard, leaving defendants and FTs without meaningful guidance and reinforcing the standard’s arbitrary application. Undefinited Legal Criteria A troubling feature of the Gauhati High Court’s jurisprudence on ex parte orders is its arbitrary invocation of legal-sounding terminology without defining or applying these terms coherently. This casual reliance on undefined concepts obscures the true basis of decision-making in citizenship cases of profound constitutional significance. A striking example is the use of terms like “special” or “exceptional” circumstances under the “sufficient cause” standard. The Court fails to define what qualifies as special or exceptional, using these labels as though their meaning is self-evident. When pleas are rejected, there is rarely any explanation as to why the circumstances fall short. 142 439 440 Sunil Ghosh v. State of Assam WP(C) 6470/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 29 May 2014). Sri Balen Ray v. Union of India WP(C) 6181/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 12 September 2018).