Can the Election Commission of India impose additional documentary requirements for enrolment through executive orders? Discuss in light of Articles 324 and 326 and the RP Act, 1950.

Article 324 gives the ECI "superintendence, direction and control" over the preparation of electoral rolls [1]. Whether that lets it add documents by executive order became a live question when Telangana rejected 1,92,574 of 5,20,331 pre-SIR Form 6 applications (37%) because they had no SIR declaration [5]. The ECI does have this power, but only in the space Parliament has left unoccupied.

Constitutional and statutory framework

• Art. 326: every citizen aged 18+ who is not disqualified by law is entitled to be registered [1].
• RP Act, 1950: S.16 bars non-citizens; S.19 sets age and ordinary-residence conditions; S.21 allows a special revision "as the ECI may direct" [2].
• Forms come from Rules: under S.28 the Centre frames rules after consulting the ECI. Form 6 is prescribed under Rules 13 and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2][3].

Case for ECI power

• Plenary reservoir: since Mohinder Singh Gill, courts have read Art. 324 as filling gaps where the law is silent [4].
• The Supreme Court (27 May 2026) upheld the SIR under Art. 324 and S.21(3). It held that not every procedural step needs express statutory backing [4].
• Roll purity: citizenship is a constitutional condition of the franchise, so checking it is part of the ECI's duty [1].

Limits on that power

• Statute prevails: the same verdict held that Art. 324 cannot override an express statutory command [4]. An extra paper outside the prescribed Form 6 sidesteps the Centre's rule-making role under S.28 [2][3].
• Retrospectivity: Telangana applicants filed between 1 January and 14 June under the old rules but were rejected under a later one. The Hindu calls this "shifting goal posts" [5].
• Burden of proof: demanding 2002-roll linkage or one of 12 documents puts the burden on the voter. This hits first-time, migrant and poor voters hardest [5].
• Proportionality: rejecting an application, rather than letting the applicant supply the missing document, is not the least restrictive way to reach the goal.
• Fairness: applications were rejected for a missing form, not because anyone was found ineligible. The 37% figure measures missing paperwork, not fake voters [5].

Conclusion. The ECI can design verification procedures under Art. 324, but it cannot narrow the franchise that Art. 326 and the RP Act guarantee. Documentary preconditions should come through Rules framed under S.28 and apply only to future applications. Applicants should get a notice-and-cure window, and rejection reasons should be published. That keeps roll purity in balance with universal adult suffrage and with SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive, representative decision-making.