The credibility of the Election Commission depends on transparency as much as autonomy. Analyse this in light of recent controversies over electoral roll revision.

Article 324 vests superintendence of electoral rolls in the Election Commission of India (ECI) and insulates its autonomy. Yet the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which removed about 13 crore names nationwide [1], shows that public trust depends equally on how openly and fairly that power is used.

Autonomy: necessary but not sufficient

• Legal mandate: the Supreme Court upheld the Bihar SIR as within the ECI's statutory powers in May 2026 [2].
• Institutional stance: the ECI maintains that SIR runs in phases with multiple safeguards for eligible voters [5].
• Insulation: the CEC can be removed only like an SC judge (Art. 324(5)), which shields decisions from the executive.
• However, legality certifies power, not accuracy. Autonomy without scrutiny invites suspicion of arbitrariness.

Transparency deficits exposed by SIR

• Scale without explanation: mass deletions triggered protests and demands to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar [1].
• Opaque process: an open letter from scientists cites a lack of transparency and accountability and weak restoration safeguards [1].
• Burden of proof: requiring voters to re-prove eligibility hurts the poor and migrants most [1]. This strains the Lal Babu Hussein (1995) rule of no deletion without a chance to show cause [3].
• Reactive safeguards: in Bihar, the publication of excluded names with reasons and the acceptance of Aadhaar came under judicial supervision [2].
• Remedy timing: a pending appeal does not by itself let an excluded person vote [4]. Delayed appeals therefore mean de facto disenfranchisement.

Reassembling: transparency strengthens autonomy

• Disclosure → verifiable error rate → public trust → legitimacy of independent action.
• The ECI's order for fresh verification in Delhi and other States/UTs [1] shows that responding to scrutiny restores credibility without diluting independence.

Way forward

• Publish every deletion with reasons, searchable by EPIC number, in every State, building on the Bihar model [2].
• Audit a random sample of deletions on the ground and publish the error rate.
• Accept Aadhaar for claims nationwide, and decide appeals within fixed timelines before rolls are frozen [4].
• Hold all-party consultation on revision SOPs before rollout.

Autonomy gives the ECI the power to act, and transparency gives that power legitimacy. Reforming SIR through disclosure, audits and accessible remedies, rather than abandoning roll purification, would uphold universal adult franchise (Art. 326) and SDG 16.7 (inclusive decision-making). It would also keep the ECI the trusted guardian the framers envisaged.