6. Conclusion Reframing the Problem: From Fragmented Flaws to Systemic Illegality This report argues that the FT system in Assam is not just flawed in execution—it is fundamentally incompatible with the Indian Constitution and India’s international human rights obligations. The failures documented across this report are not limited to implementation lapses or procedural errors. They are structural, embedded in the legal design and functioning of the system, and cannot be remedied by piecemeal reform. The conclusion reframes the core legal problem by organising the findings around three foundational principles: the rule of law, the right to a fair trial and equality of arms, and due process and natural justice. Each principle independently raises serious legal concerns. But it is their interaction— across institutions, procedures, and judicial oversight—that reveals the full extent of the illegality. Taken together, they describe a system that is not occasionally unjust, but structurally incapable of delivering lawful outcomes. Too often, assessments of the FT regime treat its elements in isolation: executive referrals, procedural informality, evidentiary rules, legal aid, judicial review. This fragmented view obscures how each part reinforces the others. Procedural unfairness is magnified by the absence of legal aid. Evidentiary burdens are made insurmountable by opaque standards. Judicial oversight not only fails to correct these deficits—it entrenches them. The result is a self-reinforcing system of exclusion, not a sequence of correctable errors. This report instead adopts a systemic lens. It evaluates the FT regime not as a collection of discrete failings, but as a system—one that must be assessed holistically. When situated within this architecture, what might appear defensible in isolation—stringent evidentiary thresholds, limited review, informal procedure—becomes indefensible. In a setting where the adjudicator lacks independence, the defendant lacks legal support or clarity, the rules are undefined, and the courts ostensibly defer to executive-appointed adjudicators, even formally neutral standards produce unlawful outcomes. From this perspective, the central claim of the report is clear: the FT regime is not merely imperfect— it is legally unsustainable. It violates the core requirements of the rule of law, fair trial, and due process not sporadically, but systematically and systemically. These are not policy shortcomings; they are breaches of binding constitutional and international legal norms. Addressing them demands more than administrative correction. It requires a root-and-branch rethinking of the entire regime’s legality and legitimacy. What follows in this conclusion is a synthesis of the report’s findings across the three legal foundations—demonstrating how their systematic violation renders the FT system beyond repair. 175