Discuss how transparency and openness to scrutiny of the ECI affect public trust in elections. Suggest institutional reforms.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) control over electoral rolls and elections [1]. Its authority depends on independence, but also on whether people can see how it reaches decisions. The 2026 Form 6 dispute shows that unclear process can damage trust even when the aim is valid.

How transparency builds trust

• Informed voting: In ADR v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down electoral bonds. It held that hiding who funds parties violated voters' right to information [2].
• Legal certainty: Registration forms are set by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. For periods outside the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the ECI has itself gone back to the forms prescribed in these Rules [3].
• Collective accountability: The ECI stressed that its decisions had "approval of the full Commission". It also promised to circulate agendas in advance and to issue minutes [3].

How opacity erodes trust

• Form changes without public notice: An SIR-specific declaration was attached to Form 6 [3]. This was done by changing the online form, not by amending the Rules. Citizens could not see the change in advance or challenge it.
• Disputed legal cover: The ECI said the declaration had been "upheld" by the Supreme Court [3]. When a court's approval is in dispute, people cannot tell whether the change is lawful.
• Exclusion risk: Questions about family records hit first-time voters and migrants hardest. The ECI later had to run a special enrolment drive for voters who were left out [3].
• Appointment process: PRS notes that the 2023 Act gives the government a majority on the selection committee, which may weaken the ECI's independence [4].

Institutional reforms

• Change forms only by amending the Rules after public consultation, never by editing the online portal.
• Publish minutes and dissent notes of Commission meetings as a legal requirement, building on the ECI's own commitment [3].
• Go back to a balanced selection panel that includes the CJI, as directed in Anoop Baranwal (2023) and recommended by the Goswami Committee and the Law Commission [4].
• Fix the CEC's and ECs' salaries through an Act of Parliament, as for Supreme Court judges, so the government cannot alter them [4].
• Publish the findings of the committee set up to check whether ECINet complies with the law, which includes an IIT expert [3].

Being open to scrutiny makes the ECI more credible, not weaker. If every change rests on published rules, recorded decisions and an independent appointment process, the ECI can maintain the "free and fair elections" the Constitution promises and keep trust in Indian democracy.