Discuss how far the Election Commission of India can prescribe documentation requirements under Article 324 without explicit statutory backing.

Article 324 vests the "superintendence, direction and control" of electoral rolls and elections in the ECI. The Supreme Court has called it a reservoir of power wherever the law is silent [1]. That power is meant to supplement Parliament's law, not to replace it [2]. The current dispute over Form 6 in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) tests exactly where this line falls.

Where the ECI can prescribe documentation

• Filling gaps: Where the RPA, 1950 and the 1960 Rules are silent, the ECI may issue directions to secure free and fair elections [1].
• Statutory hook: Section 21(3), RPA 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision of rolls at any time [3].
• Judicial endorsement: The SC's Bihar SIR judgment (May 2026) upheld the SIR. It also recognised a "degree of residual authority" for the ECI to frame documentation [5].
• Roll purity: Removing dead, shifted and duplicate entries is a legitimate goal that justifies verification.

Where the power stops

• Cannot override statute: Article 324 cannot be used where an Act or Rule already covers the matter [2].
• Rational nexus: The same judgment said any departure from the statute must have a rational nexus with the SIR's purpose [5].
• Fair procedure: Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules requires a published list and a hearing before any deletion [4]. The ECI's own FAQ requires notice to the voter except for confirmed deaths [6].
• Criminal exposure: 47,56,722 Delhi electors excluded under the ASDD category must re-apply through Form 6, which is meant for first-time voters [7]. They must falsely declare that they are enrolling for the first time. That risks prosecution under Section 31 (up to one year in jail, a fine, or both) [3].
• Extra-legal declarations: The plea says the extra SIR-linkage declaration has "no force of law" [7].
• Article 326: Paperwork cannot become a barrier to universal adult franchise.

Way forward

• Notify a separate "restoration of name" form in the 1960 Rules.
• EROs should restore names on their own where Rule 21A was not followed [4].
• The ECI should give a written assurance that it will not prosecute under Section 31 while the case is pending.

In short, the ECI may prescribe documentation to fill genuine gaps, but only within the limits of the statute, the Rules and fair procedure. Writing SIR procedures into rules approved by Parliament would reconcile roll purity with inclusion. That would keep the ECI the guardian of free and fair elections that Mohinder Singh Gill described, and honour Article 326.