Public trust in the Election Commission is as important as its legal autonomy. Examine with reference to recent electoral-roll revision exercises.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) the "superintendence, direction and control" of electoral rolls [1]. Legal autonomy protects the ECI from the executive. But the loser accepts the result only if citizens believe the rolls are fair. Recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises show that the two matter equally.

Legal autonomy: the necessary foundation

• SIR is ordered under Article 324 and Section 21, RP Act, 1950. Phase-III covers 16 States and 3 UTs [1].
• This power lets the ECI remove dead, shifted and duplicate names, in pursuit of "Pure Electoral Rolls" [2]. The routine annual summary revision adds names easily but rarely removes old ones [3].

Why autonomy alone is not enough

• Opaque flags: rule-based categories such as "unmapped" and "logical discrepancies" put the burden of proof on voters. Physical hearings for them were dropped only on 26 September 2026 [4].
• Silent exclusion: in Bihar, the Supreme Court noted that very few claims were filed despite legal aid. There was no appeal against 3.66 lakh deletions [5]. A lawful procedure did not by itself show a fair outcome.
• Shifting timelines: the schedule was extended repeatedly [6], most recently for A.P. and Meghalaya [4]. This points to weak planning.
• Court-led correction: judicial scrutiny in Bihar shaped safeguards [5]. When fixes come from courts rather than being built into the process, the ECI looks less neutral, even though it remains legally independent.

Trust-building measures already visible

• Multi-party checks: A.P. alone has 68,868 party-appointed BLAs alongside 46,397 BLOs [7].
• Oversight: Special Roll Observers meet all parties so that "no eligible elector is left out" [8]. The full bench held review meetings twice in four days [4].
• Natural justice: A.P.'s claims-and-objections window was extended to 10 October 2026 [4].

Legal autonomy ──► lawful rolls ─┐
                                 ├──► accepted verdict ──► democratic legitimacy
Public trust  ──► fair process  ─┘

Both inputs are needed for an accepted verdict.

The SIR experience shows that legal autonomy makes the ECI's actions valid, while public trust makes people accept them. The way forward is to:

• publish the criteria behind each flag;
• release booth-wise reasons for deletions;
• have BLOs settle flagged cases at the voter's door;
• hold Legal Services Authority camps for migrants and homeless people.

Pure rolls must also be inclusive rolls. That fulfils Article 326's promise of universal adult franchise and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive, representative decision-making.