5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court 5.2.1 Lack of Standards for Appreciating Evidence As detailed in §4.2.6 to §4.2.12, the Gauhati High Court has departed from settled principles of evidence law in citizenship cases, substituting them with vague, inconsistent, and at times ad hoc criteria. This subsection argues that the Court’s approach to evaluating evidence is both unpredictable and impractical. While its language suggests rigorous scrutiny, these standards are applied selectively and arbitrarily, leaving defendants unable to know what is required to prove their case. In reality, no standard emerges that, if met, would definitively establish the credibility of evidence. The result is a shifting and unattainable burden, undermining fairness and legal certainty in citizenship determinations. Proof of Documents A core problem in the Gauhati High Court’s jurisprudence is its approach to proving the authenticity of documents, particularly certificates crucial to establishing citizenship. Historically, the Court required testimony from the issuing authority to confirm a document’s genuineness. In 2016, it introduced another requirement: the issuing authority must now also produce contemporaneous records—such as a register or counterfoil—to corroborate their testimony.480 This increased the burden on litigants without reconciling prior decisions, leaving both FT members and litigants without a coherent framework for proving document authenticity.481 An analysis of the High Court’s decisions reveals glaring inconsistencies. While all judges demand testimony from the issuing authority, the content of that testimony is subject to shifting and arbitrary expectations. In some cases, judges have insisted that the authority must have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the certificate. Yet, when such testimony is provided, the focus conveniently shifts to other details framed as supposed deficiencies.482 Illustrations: ● Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the Gaonburah’s credibility in Chabu Ali for not knowing his birth year.483 ● In Romila Khatun’s case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed doubts because the Gaonburah did not mention the year of Romila’s marriage.484 ● The Gaonburah’s knowledge of Ismail Khalifa’s family for nine years was dismissed as insufficient,485 and a similar approach was applied in Jaygan Nessa because of the Gaonburah’s lack of knowledge about her parents’ background.486 480 Alaluddin (n 369); Joynab Bibi (n 367); Anowar Hussain (n 376); Musstt. Sahara Begum (n 376); Md. Sayed Ali (n 372). Bhat (n 21). 482 Anowara Bewa v. Union of India WP(C) 905/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 17 May 2019). 483 Md. Chabu Ali (n 380). 484 Romila Khatun (n 376). 485 Ismail Khalifa @ Ismail Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 3458/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 15 June 2018. See also Abdul Barek v. Union of India WP(C) 1478/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 2 April 2019), where the same approach was taken due to the Gaonburah’s lack of knowledge about the defendant’s mother.. 486 Jaygan Nessa (n 372). 481 151