1. Framing the Intervention 30 Part II turns to the detailed empirical and procedural examination of the FT system’s operation, showing how the structural and normative failures identified in Part I manifest in the day-to-day working of the tribunals and their broader legal environment. Chapter 4 focuses on due process and natural justice at the granular level of the FT trial. It provides a systematic analysis of how procedural safeguards are flouted at every stage of the process—from pre-referral inquiry, to notice and hearing, to evidentiary assessment and decision writing. The chapter demonstrates that referral authorities often fail to conduct meaningful inquiries before making references; that FTs issue notices without adequate grounds or disclosure of materials; that defendants are routinely denied access to inquiry reports or the opportunity to cross-examine inquiry officers; and that decisions are made on the basis of arbitrary evidentiary standards and often in the absence of proper rebuttal from the State. This chapter powerfully shows how procedural violations are not isolated failings but are systemic, recurring across cases and undermining the integrity of the entire citizenship determination process. Chapter 5 takes this analysis further by examining the role of the Gauhati High Court, which, in the absence of an appellate mechanism, is the primary forum for judicial review of FT decisions. The chapter argues that the High Court has failed to provide meaningful oversight or correction of the procedural and substantive deficiencies in the FT process. Instead, it has allowed vast areas of the law governing citizenship determination to remain undefined, has issued contradictory decisions, and has adopted an overly restrictive view of its own role under Article 226. By failing to develop coherent legal standards or enforce existing safeguards, the High Court has not only failed to check the excesses of the FTs, but has actively contributed to the creation of a legal vacuum where arbitrary and inconsistent adjudication flourishes. This chapter demonstrates that the FT system’s failures cannot be ascribed solely to the tribunals themselves, but are a product of the broader legal and judicial architecture that has abdicated its responsibility to uphold constitutional values and protect fundamental rights. Across both parts of the report, the argument is clear and consistent: the FT system is not merely flawed in its details, but is constitutionally and legally unsustainable in its design, operation, and supervision. The chapters work together to show that the structural illegitimacy of the FTs (Chapter 2) and the procedural unfairness of their processes (Chapter 3) find their empirical confirmation in the everyday realities of citizenship trials (Chapter 4) and the failure of judicial correction (Chapter 5). The report, as a whole, argues that unless these foundational defects are addressed—through statutory reform, institutional redesign, and a reinvigoration of judicial responsibility—the FT regime will continue to produce injustice on a massive scale, particularly against already marginalised and precarious communities. The stakes, as the report makes plain, are not merely technical or procedural, but are profoundly social and political: they concern the right to belong, the security of citizenship, and the integrity of India’s constitutional democracy.