5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court Yet, as this section will demonstrate, none of these judicial reforms have permeated through the regime. This section will examine the Gauhati High Court’s approach following Justice Kotiswar Singh’s departure in February 2023 and analyse judgments passed in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Any and all piecemeal improvements introduced, including by the Supreme Court, have been routinely undermined. Since 2023, the Gauhati High Court could have drawn upon these jurisprudential reforms to guide FT adjudication. Instead, it has done the opposite, either through nonimplementation or by layering additional, extra-legal burdens on litigants, often leading to a worse state of affairs than the previous one (Chapter 4). Outcomes continue to disregard established adjudicatory norms, rely on selective interpretations of evidence, hinge on minor discrepancies, and irrelevant and trivial considerations unsupported by robust legal reasoning. As a result, even legal principles well-settled by earlier benches receive uneven and unpredictable treatment, exposing the system’s deep resistance to meaningful reform in FT adjudication. 5.3.1 Adjudicating Oral Evidence The Gauhati High Court has generally maintained that oral evidence, in the absence of documentary support, is inadmissible in FT proceedings—a stance that, as this report argues contravenes principles of due process and fair trial (§5.2.1). Since 2021, however, the High Court’s bench dealing with FT-related writ petitions, led by Justice Kotiswar Singh, issued judgments that ostensibly recognise the significance of oral testimony in these cases, particularly testimony from family members, such as mothers, who possess direct knowledge of familial relationships.530 These rulings sought to correct the FTs’ frequent disregard for oral evidence and to follow Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act,531 which governs the admissibility of testimony regarding family relationships. The Court reiterated the three-part requirement under Section 50: that the witness must have special knowledge of the familial relationship, derived from being a family member or from personal proximity. Properly applied, this framework should have provided clear guidance to the FTs, requiring them to evaluate oral testimony rigorously, assess whether it was rebutted by the State, and reject such evidence only with reasoned justification. Yet, these standards have largely failed to shape actual adjudication—whether by the FTs or by the High Court after Justice Singh’s tenure. Despite the legal developments recognising the admissibility and value of oral evidence, particularly maternal 530 531 Karim Ali (n 527); Haidar Ali (n 297); Sujab Ali (n 527). Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 50: “Opinion on relationship, when relevant. –– When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.” 161