"The legitimacy of the Election Commission rests as much on perception as on legality." Critically analyse this in the light of recent controversies.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) its legal authority. Its legitimacy also depends on losers as well as winners accepting the result, and that needs a Commission seen as neutral. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls shows that a lawful process can still face a crisis of trust.

Legality: the ECI's firm footing

• Constitutional mandate: In May 2026 the Supreme Court held that the SIR rests on Section 21(3), RP Act 1950, read with Article 324. It found the exercise proportionate, with safeguards against arbitrary exclusion [3].
• Judicial correction: The Court required Aadhaar to be accepted as a document. It also kept wrongful deletions open to judicial review [3].
• Statutory appointments: The CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 gives the selection process a parliamentary basis [4].

Perception: where legitimacy is strained

• Scale without explanation: About 13 crore names have been deleted nationwide [1]. In Bihar about 65 lakh names were dropped at the draft stage, and the electorate fell from 7.89 crore to about 7.42 crore [2]. Being legal does not show how many of these deletions were genuine.
• Appointment design: Anoop Baranwal (2023) put the CJI on the selection panel. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister, giving the executive greater control [4].
• Internal opacity: The Leader of Opposition and other INDIA bloc leaders have asked for the ECs' notings and objections. They allege the CEC acted "arbitrarily and unilaterally" [1]. Even a lawful power, used arbitrarily, offends Article 14.

Critical appraisal

• Perception cannot be the sole test. If legitimacy depended on partisan perception, any losing side could discredit a fair process. Clean rolls are themselves part of free and fair elections [3].
• Legality is a floor, not a ceiling. Courts examine legal power and procedure; they do not create trust. Transparency turns legal authority into public confidence, so the two work together rather than compete.

Legality gives the ECI its authority, and perception earns it acceptance; the statement holds largely, but not entirely. The way forward is:

• recorded reasons for every deletion
• state-wise draft-versus-final figures
• sealed-cover judicial scrutiny of internal notings
• a balanced selection panel, as Anoop Baranwal envisaged [4]

These steps would fulfil Article 324 and SDG 16's call for transparent institutions, keeping the ECI both lawful and trusted.