5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court In sum, the High Court’s treatment of oral evidence reveals selective scepticism, arbitrary reasoning, and contradictory standards. The absence of a clear, consistent framework undermines fairness and injects systemic uncertainty into citizenship determinations. By failing to apply stable, manageable evidentiary standards, the Court has compromised the transparency, reliability, and constitutional integrity of its adjudication. 5.2.2 Arbitrary Outcomes The previous subsection highlighted the Gauhati High Court’s failure to apply consistent standards when assessing evidence in writ petitions challenging FT decisions on the merits. This lack of clear and coherent guidelines has made evidentiary standards not only unpredictable but, in practice, impossible to satisfy. As a result, defendants are left without a meaningful way to gather and present evidence to prove their citizenship, and FT members are deprived of the guidance necessary for fair and consistent adjudication. While the systemic flaws of the FT process are well known, the High Court’s inconsistent and arbitrary approach has deepened these problems, fostering an environment where decisions appear to be driven by factors extraneous to the legal record rather than principled legal reasoning. This subsection builds on that argument by demonstrating, through detailed analysis of High Court rulings, that the reasoning given in orders often fails to justify—or even directly contradicts—the outcomes reached in comparable cases. To do so, it draws on 16 cases where writ petitions were allowed and petitioners were declared Indians, comparing the reasoning with the typical reasoning discussed in Chapter 4.504 This disconnect between reasoning and result raises serious concerns that decisions may be shaped by unrecorded or extraneous considerations rather than law. In effect, outcomes appear to rest on judicial whim rather than defined, legal standards, undermining the integrity of the entire process of citizenship adjudication. 155 504 Ambika Sarmah v. State of Assam WP(C) 4812/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 8 September 2015); Padma Newar @ Padmamaya Newar @ Sumitra Newar v. State of Assam WP(C) 4313/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 7 September 2015); Musstt Manowara Khatun @ Manowara Begum v. Union of India WP(C) 3853/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 12 November 2015); Dinesh Sarkar and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 1644/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 21 January 2014); Smti. Sadhana Rai v. Union of India WP(C) 7276/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 2 December 2015); Sadhan Chandra Biswas @ Sadhan Biswas v. Union of India WP(C) 4928/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 25 August 2015); Subha Rani Das (n 392); Maulavi Md. Daud Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam WP(C) 5421/2011 (Gauhati High Court, 28 August 2015); Smt. Rita Kundu Paul v. Union of India WP(C) 5290/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 30 September 2015); Ajitananda Das alias Ajit Das and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 1175/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 7 October 2015); Musstt. Gulesa Begum and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 465/2015 (Gauhati High Court, 4 August 2015); Dipak Mandal v. Union of India WP(C) 32/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 21 August 2015); Arati Bhowmik v. Union of India WP(C) 1958/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 5 October 2015); Subhash Bhowmik v. Union of India WP(C) 1959/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 5 October 2015); Smti Magadha @ Manoda Das v. State of Assam WP(C) 1472/2010 (Gauhati High Court, 27 August 2015); Manjula Nag @ Manjula Dhar v. Union of India WP(C) 4504/2016 (Gauhati High Court, 11 June 2018).