5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court In Muslim Ali’s (2024)535 case, the FT summarily dismissed the oral evidence adduced by the defendant and his mother, since that did not affirm their Indian citizenship. The FT relied on minor discrepancies in age to entirely discard the evidence adduced by the defendant in his depositions, rendering them untrustworthy and unreliable. As established by the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab,536 even material discrepancies in recording of names, age and address of the family members of the defendant cannot be grounds to doubt the entire oral testimony of the defendant. The Gauhati High Court537 has held that failure to disclose names of family members and minor discrepancies within the course of the evidence do not render the entire evidence unreliable. In Amzad Talukdar (2025),538 the FT had disregarded the petitioner’s documentary evidence and the corroborative testimony of his uncle and the village Gaonburah, even though this evidence went unrebutted during proceedings. The FT rejected the uncle’s testimony solely because he produced only the 1970 voter list and his voter ID card—an incorrect reading of evidentiary requirements, as witnesses are not obliged to annex multiple documents to establish legacy. As established in Justice Kotiswar Singh’s decisions, oral evidence should be admissible without documentary support. The Gaonburah’s testimony was similarly discarded on the ground that it proved only residence, not parentage. The High Court remanded the case for reconsideration without properly engaging with the evidence or addressing the FT’s flawed reasoning. The remand order lacked clarity as to its purpose or the legal standard to be applied. A meaningful reading of the record reveals that the petitioner’s linkage to his father—whose pre-1971 presence in Assam was established—had been adequately proven. These cases expose a persistent failure to engage in the careful, constitutionally attentive adjudication required by the High Court’s own rulings. Despite clear standards established in 2021– 2022 on the admissibility and value of oral evidence in FT proceedings, subsequent judgments have disregarded these principles, denying individuals a fair opportunity to establish citizenship through familial testimony. 163 535 Muslim Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 1591/2017 (Gauhati High Court, 12 June 2024). (2003) 7 SCC 643 [18]. Haidar Ali (n 297) [24]. 538 Amzad Talukdar @ Amzad Ali v. Union of India WP(C) 7440/2018 (Gauhati High Court, 8 January 2025). 536 537