The French Constitution of 1789 states: “Law is the expression of the general will.” The same principle is the very soul of the Indian constitution. The state derived power from the people, and the people have the ultimate right to oversee and control that power. This “democratic control” is a crucial freedom.This also means that governments can’t operate in secrecy or without the approval and oversight of the legislature elected by the people. Groups that advocate for civil liberties everywhere have consistently emphasised in their missions and campaigns that governmental power must be accountable to the public in some form.It is precisely on this point that the problem with the special intensive revision (SIR) begins.Rather than strengthening the expression of popular will, SIR operates in a manner that constrains it. Instead of reinforcing democratic control, it displaces it behind administrative procedures and documentary requirements. A huge number of people are being left off the voter lists without getting a chance to explain their situation, without any real discussion in parliament, and without people generally agreeing to it. While democracy is supposed to mean the government answers to its people, this system flips things around, making citizens prove repeatedly that they are real – and they are allowed to vote. This shift not only makes it possible to govern without openness but also chips away at the very freedoms that democratic oversight is supposed to safeguard. It is not just a simple administrative update for elections, it stands in direct tension with the foundational democratic principle of people retaining the ultimate right to oversee and restrain a state’s power.The world has witnessed voter exclusion in several democracies, including the United States and other countries. However, what is unfolding in India is of a different scale and nature. Here, the erosion of voting rights is not taking place through an overt legal assault but through an administrative process presented as a routine electoral “correction”.Large-scale disenfranchisementThe draft electoral rolls released under Phase II of the SIR indicate that India may be moving towards one of the largest episodes of voter disenfranchisement in its democratic history.Under the second phase, draft voter lists have been published in 12 states. What emerges from these lists is not a marginal revision exercise but a picture of mass exclusion, in which nearly 6.59 crore voters have been excluded, based on official data and credible reports. A state-wise analysis reveals that this burden has not been evenly distributed. The impact is most severe in large and electorally decisive states, raising fundamental questions about the design and consequences of the SIR process. The situation is most alarming in Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state. Prior to SIR, the state’s electorate stood at approximately 15.4 crore. After the first phase of SIR, this number dropped sharply to 12.5 crore, implying that nearly 2.89 crore voters were removed from the draft rolls. Uttar Pradesh alone accounts for a substantial share of the total exclusions recorded nationwide. The state also offers a rare and revealing natural experiment. While the Election Commission of India (ECI) was conducting the SIR, the Uttar Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC-UP) – an independent constitutional authority was simultaneously revising voter lists for panchayat (local body) elections.The conditions were identical – same state, same population – and two constitutional authorities conducting parallel exercises. Yet, the results were different.Unlike the SIR, the panchayat-level revision did not require citizenship documents or impose enumeration forms on voters. The outcome of these two approaches could not have been more stark.After the SIR, the ECI’s draft voter list for Uttar Pradesh recorded 12.55 crore electors. In contrast, the voter list prepared for panchayat elections recorded 12.70 crore voters, a figure that is higher than the entire electorate recognised by the ECI under the SIR process.More tellingly, the panchayat revision added nearly 40 lakh voters compared to the previous roll, an increase of 3.27%. By contrast, the SIR process resulted in the exclusion of approximately 18% of the electorate, amounting to about 2.89 crore names.When approximately 4.23 crore urban voters for local body elections were added to the panchayat voter lists, the total electorate in Uttar Pradesh rose to 16.93 crore, a figure that closely matches the state’s projected adult population. The timelines further underline the imbalance: the state election commission allowed a seven-month period for updating the panchayat voter lists.Instructions for the comprehensive revision of the three-tier Panchayat electoral rolls for UP in 2025 as mentioned in the circular.Meanwhile, the ECI wants to complete the whole process through SIR in just three months. This shorter timeframe meant more people were accidentally left out, and there weren’t many chances to fix those mistakes. This difference cannot just be brushed off as a random fluke or a scheduling oopsie. It shows that there’s a real problem with how the voter list update process is set up in the name of SIR.This accidental natural experiment makes one conclusion unavoidable: SIR is not a neutral technical exercise. It is a system that, by imposing documentary and procedural burdens, systematically pushes citizens out of the democratic process.What is publicly framed as routine roll correction operates, in practice, as a large-scale disenfranchising mechanism.Pratayksh Mishra is a public policy researcher focusing on democracy, electoral processes, and the social impact of public policies.