Critically examine the role of transparency and procedural safeguards in maintaining public trust in electoral management bodies.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" of elections. Its legitimacy still depends on public trust. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls shows that this trust comes from a process people can see and check. Constitutional status alone does not earn it.

How transparency and safeguards build trust

• Clear legal basis: The Bihar SIR was ordered under Art. 324 and Sec. 21 of the RP Act, 1950, with a declared qualifying date of 1 July 2025 [1]. The Supreme Court held it traceable to Sec. 21(3) read with Art. 324 [2].
• Verification parties can watch: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) checked house to house, and political parties' Booth Level Agents took part [1].
• Several levels of appeal: Claims go to the ERO. Appeals go to the District Magistrate and then the CEO under Sec. 24 [1].
• Due process upheld by the Court: The Court found that notice and hearing under Rule 21A were "preserved in substance". It held the exercise proportionate, with "sufficient procedural safeguards" [2].
• Limits on the ECI's power: A name on the roll carries a presumption of validity. Deleting a name is not a declaration that the person is not a citizen. Citizenship-based deletions must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority, and names are restored if citizenship is confirmed [2].
• Phased rollout: Later SIR phases ran with multiple safeguards, and names were deleted only after BLO verification [3].

Limitations

• Scale versus scrutiny: About 65 lakh names were removed from Bihar's draft roll [4]. Numbers this large make careful case-by-case checking hard.
• Remedies depend on the voter acting: Deletions for "permanent shifting" [3] can leave migrants on no roll at all. Claims and appeals help only voters who know they were removed and can produce documents.
• Safeguards came from the courts: Aadhaar was added as an acceptable document only by a Supreme Court order of 8 September 2025 [2]. The ECI did not offer it on its own.
• Last resort is slow: Bihar residents wrongly deleted as absent, dead or shifted were left to seek judicial review [2]. That remedy is costly and slow.

Way forward

• Publish booth-wise deletion data broken down by reason and gender.
• Report how many citizenship cases were referred and how many names were restored. The Court wants these cases decided before the next election [2].
• Run active enrolment drives alongside deletions.

Transparency and safeguards turn the ECI's legal authority into public confidence. However, they currently depend too much on voters taking action and on court orders. If the ECI makes its data open by default and works as hard to add eligible voters as to remove ineligible ones, it can protect both the purity of the rolls and the universal adult franchise of Article 326.