India, Sept. 28 -- Sweeping changes implemented in the special intensive revision (SIR) by the Election Commission of India (ECI) are welcome, butit is difficult to overlook that the announcement only came after a controversy broke out about dissent within the body or that the harassment of ordinary citizens resulted from the watchdog's constantly changing mechanisms. ECI might have taken great pains to project a united front and underline that the changes announced on Saturday stemmed from unanimity, but it only raises more questions about ECI's previous decisions. The extension of SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra will bring relief to millions of citizens languishing in queues and crowded centres, trying to convince officials that a typo or a misspelling should not extinguish their identity as voters. But the fact that the process in these regions eventually will take roughly five months - SIR began on June 30 in both provinces - indicates that ECI's original timelines were both rushed and responsible for harassment. Relegating physical hearings in logical discrepancy cases only to exceptional cases and relaxing personal appearance norms are desirable. They will allow SIR to become a verification process without becoming a burden on the underprivileged, but questions are bound to crop up about why ECI didn't review its processes when it became clear that dubious translation and questionable protocols were resulting in hardships to ordinary people. ECI also attempted to push back against allegations of illegality and impropriety. It said tweaks to the form used by new electors was in line with a Supreme Court verdict, its software obeyed all relevant laws, and that a letter written to the cabinet secretary by two election commissioners was not about any decisions but an official. But its decision to order an oversight review of its software protocol, announce that all new decisions on digital initiatives will need to be discussed, and its continued silence on what exactly transpired in Goa - where 97 voters were deleted despite being cleared by local authorities - or West Bengal (where 2.71 million people were disenfranchised) are disquieting. This newspaper has consistently noted that regular updates to electoral rolls are desirable but that transparency cannot be sacrificed at the altar of statistical purity. ECI's belated course correction is welcome and will help restore ordinary people's faith in the electoral process. But it will do well to address uncomfortable questions about its decision-making processes. Doing so will only bolster its stature....