Electoral integrity depends as much on public trust as on procedure. Discuss this in the context of recent demands for accountability from the Election Commission of India.

Article 324 places the "superintendence, direction and control" of elections in the Election Commission of India (ECI). Sound procedure makes the count accurate. The result becomes legitimate only when the losing side also accepts it. Recent demands for the CEC's accountability show that procedure and trust cannot be separated.

Procedure: the necessary foundation

• Robust machinery: The Model Code of Conduct, EVMs with VVPAT and independent observers have produced peaceful transfers of power at a very large scale.
• Judicial checks: In ADR v. ECI (2024), the SC upheld EVMs. It also ordered symbol-loading units to be sealed and allowed losing candidates to ask for checks of EVM memory [2].
• Voter's right to know: The SC struck down electoral bonds because they violated voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) [3].

Trust: the equally necessary condition

• Perceived independence: In Anoop Baranwal (2023), the SC ruled that the Executive alone should not appoint Election Commissioners [1]. The 2023 Act then replaced the CJI on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister, which gives the government a majority [1].
• Service conditions: PRS notes that linking the CEC's salary to the Cabinet Secretary's lets the government fix it. Parliament, not the government, fixes the pay of SC judges [1].
• Transparency gaps: When large-scale revisions of electoral rolls are poorly explained, people start to fear wrongful exclusion. This happens even when the procedure is lawful.

Recent accountability demands

• Opposition parties and civil-society groups protested at Jantar Mantar demanding the CEC's resignation. The protests followed media reports questioning the ECI and objections to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
• Prohibitory orders and mass detentions risked deepening that distrust. Anuradha Bhasin (2020) requires such orders to state material facts and to be proportionate [4].
• Allegations that no court has tested should not be treated as fact. Partisan attacks can also wear down trust in the institution itself.

Procedure and trust strengthen each other: rules give results their accuracy, and public confidence gives them legitimacy. Several steps would help. A neutral appointment panel, as Anoop Baranwal intended [1], is one. Others are publishing reasons for deletions from electoral rolls, releasing VVPAT audit data openly and handling grievances quickly. Together, these would make the ECI fair and also seen to be fair. That would strengthen free and fair elections, which are part of the Constitution's basic structure, and the responsive institutions called for in SDG 16.