5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court as decisive. Despite the issuing authorities’ testimony, these certificates were consistently rejected, highlighting the High Court’s preoccupation with minor, subjective details over substantive evidence. Other cases reveal similar inconsistencies. For instance, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan frequently required certificates to carry an issue number,492 but in one decision, faulted a certificate because the date did not appear below the Block Development Officer’s signature.493 In this case, the absence of a memo number was cited as proof of inauthenticity. These fluctuating requirements reveal that no single criterion ensures a document’s acceptance; new objections are readily devised to justify rejection. This pattern fosters an appearance of bias, where documents are presumed dubious and scrutinised to find fault. The cumulative effect is to systematically disadvantage litigants. The Court’s focus on inconsequential formatting over substantive evidence exposes a departure from sound evidentiary principles, revealing that these rulings are less about authenticating documents and more about erecting insurmountable barriers to proving citizenship. Appreciating Oral Evidence The Gauhati High Court’s approach to oral testimony in contested citizenship cases is marked by inconsistency and arbitrariness, creating formidable hurdles for defendants. Judges apply shifting, ad hoc standards that lack coherence, often dismissing testimony on ever-changing grounds. Even when defendants meet one evidentiary demand, their testimony is rejected for a newly devised reason, leaving no clear path for satisfying the Court’s requirements. Consider decisions by Justice Manojit Bhuyan that highlight these shifting standards. In some cases, testimony was dismissed because the witness’s name did not appear in the written statement.494 In others, when witnesses were listed in the written statement, their testimony was rejected for a different reason: the Court required documentary evidence to corroborate the relationship.495 The standard thus changes from case to case, creating a moving target for litigants. Illustrations: ● In Sahera Khatun,496 Justice Bhuyan rejected the testimony of her brother because he was not named in her written statement, finding his appearance suspicious. ● In Maharjan Nessa,497 the testimonies of her brother, uncle, and neighbour were discarded for the reason stated above. ● Yet, in Rupbhanu Nessa’s case,498 her brother’s testimony was rejected despite his name being included in the written statement. This time, the Court required documentary evidence to confirm their relationship. 492 Afuja Begum @ Afruja Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 7340/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 19 April 2018); Musstt. Sahara Begum (n 376). Joyful Bibi (n 368). 494 Jahura Bibi (n 401); Sufiya Khatun (n 366); Maharjan Nessa (n 418); Basiran Begum (n 366). 495 Abdul Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 8198/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 10 May 2019); Nur Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 1900/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 18 February 2020). 496 Sahera Khatun (n 430). 497 Maharjan Nessa (n 418). 498 Rupbhanu Nessa @ Rup Bhanu v. Union of India WP(C) 3383/2019 (Gauhati High Court, 16 September 2019). 493 153