5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Irrelevant Observations and Lack of Justification in Decisions The High Court’s reasoning is further undermined by its reliance on irrelevant observations and its arbitrary dismissal of evidence without adequate explanation. In many cases, the Court’s decisions hinge on minor formatting errors or trivial details that bear no clear relevance to determining citizenship. The reasoning often appears as an afterthought, offering no meaningful justification for the outcome (see §5.2.1). In two orders, petitioners were declared Indians without any legal reasoning, further highlighting the lack of justification in decision-making. For instance, in Dinesh Sarkar,520 the Court quashed the FT’s order without addressing clear discrepancies in his evidence or explaining why his wife was granted citizenship. The decision rested primarily on counsel’s submissions, with no requirement for proof or rationale provided for the conclusion. Similarly, in Subhash and Aroti Bhowmik,521 the Court ruled in their favour without referencing any evidence to substantiate their claim, leaving its reasoning entirely opaque. Extraneous and potentially biased considerations also appear to shape decisions. In Jiria Chouhan,522 Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that certain individuals, by virtue of their surname, should not be suspected as illegal migrants—invoking non-legal factors in what should have been a strictly evidence-based determination. Such observations introduce subjective and potentially discriminatory elements into judicial reasoning, further eroding confidence in the fairness and integrity of citizenship adjudication. Conclusion The Gauhati High Court’s inconsistent, ad hoc, and opaque approach to evidence in citizenship cases has created an environment in which judicial decisions appear arbitrary, unprincipled, and detached from any coherent legal framework. The Court’s failure to articulate clear standards for evaluating discrepancies in names, ages, or other personal details leaves litigants without meaningful guidance on how to meet evidentiary requirements. This unpredictability not only undermines the credibility of individual judgments but also erodes trust in the judicial process itself, fuelling perceptions that outcomes are shaped as much by discretion—or bias—as by law. Moreover, the Court’s reliance on irrelevant observations, its dismissal of material evidence without adequate justification, and its inconsistent choice between remedies such as quashment and remand reveal a deeper structural problem: the absence of a principled and rigorous method for adjudicating citizenship claims. Decisions that invoke extralegal considerations, or hinge on minor procedural or clerical details, compound this concern, signalling a departure from constitutional guarantees of equality and due process. 520 521 522 Dinesh Sarkar and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) 1644/2013 (Gauhati High Court, 21 January 2014). Arati Bhowmik (n 504); Subhash Bhowmik (n 504). Jiria Chauhan @ Jhiria Chawhan v. Union of India WP(C) 3184/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 24 July 2017). 159