5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court the certificate’s details did not fully align with her declaration. Similarly, in Sadhana Bala Rai,515 the Court accepted her citizenship claim solely on the basis of her inclusion in the 1970 Voter Roll, without demanding further lineage documentation. This leniency was not extended to all petitioners. In contrast, a more rigid approach appears in other cases. For example, in Suruj Kazi,516 Justice Sharma disregarded the Headmaster’s testimony, despite the Headmaster producing an Admission Register listing Suruj’s birth year as 1972. The inability of the Headmaster to explain all the register details led to his evidence being deemed unreliable. By contrast, in Manowara’s case, the Headmaster was not even questioned. In Khatoon Nessa,517 Justice Sharma did not review her claim of citizenship by birth, despite her name appearing in the 1975 Voter Roll with her husband, aged 27. This variation—leniency in some cases and rigidity in others—reveals an arbitrary judicial approach to citizenship claims based on birth. Choice Between Quashing and Remanding FT Orders The High Court’s inconsistency also extends to the remedies it provides in similar cases. Sometimes, it quashes FT orders outright, affirming the petitioner’s citizenship immediately. In other instances, it remands the case back to the FT for reconsideration, subjecting petitioners to renewed proceedings. These differing decisions carry significant consequences for petitioners. Illustrations: ● In Kayom Ali,518 Justice Bujor Barua remanded the case to the tribunal due to minor discrepancies in the petitioner’s age in official records. Although Ali claimed to be the son of a declared citizen and his documents supported this, Justice Barua ordered reexamination focusing on an age discrepancy arguably trivial enough to overlook. ● Conversely, in Reeta Kundu,519 with similar age discrepancies, Justice B.K. Sharma quashed the FT proceedings, holding such variations to be “immaterial” and irrelevant to citizenship claims. This absence of a principled basis for choosing between quashment and remand suggests that judicial discretion, rather than consistent legal standards, drives outcomes. Both Kayom Ali and 158 Reeta Kundu had been declared foreigners due to supposed age mismatches in public documents , yet the judges’ remedies diverged sharply. The practical consequence is that while Reeta Kundu was promptly recognized as a citizen, Kayom Ali faced prolonged legal scrutiny. This discrepancy fuels perceptions of arbitrariness, with petitioners’ fates hinging more on individual judicial preference than on coherent legal criteria. 515 Smti. Sadhana Rai (n 504). Suruz Kazi v. Union of India WP(C) 7448/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 23 April 2014). Musstt. Khatoon Nessa and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 2098/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 30 August 2013). 518 Kayom Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 6978/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 18 January 2019). 519 Smt. Rita Kundu Paul v. Union of India WP(C) 5290/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 30 September 2015). 516 517