Quickly made rules and regulations that may not be well thought out or effective in addressing the issue at hand.

On December 17, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, a Member of Parliament from Wayanad, addressed the Lok Sabha and requested for the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission Bill, 2025 to be sent to the Standing Committee for further review and suggestions. However, her request was denied by the opposition members who claimed that the Bill was made available to them on the members' portal at 5 pm and amendments were requested by 5:45 pm, leaving them with very little time to understand and review the Bill. They argued that at least one day should have been given for them to properly read and comprehend the Bill. Despite their objections, the Bill was passed through a voice vote on December 18. This has become a common practice during the Modi era, where bills are passed without proper scrutiny or understanding of their contents. In the 14th Lok Sabha, 60% of the bills were referred to committees for examination, but in the subsequent Lok Sabha, this number increased to 71%. However, in the first and second Modi government, this number drastically reduced to 25% and 16% respectively. This goes against the parliamentary convention of sending bills to department-related parliamentary standing committees for thorough scrutiny and examination. This trend of hastily passing bills without proper scrutiny has also been observed with other important laws, such as the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In 2019, changes were made to the RTI Act without consulting any committees, resulting in India's global ranking on the RTI index falling from second to eighth and then ninth. This was a cause of concern for many MPs, including those from the Telugu Desam Party, Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, and the Communist Party of India. They wrote to express their worry about the lack of public consultation and the disregard for parliamentary committees in the passing of bills. It is important to note that this haste and arrogance in passing bills can often lead to unwanted outcomes. This was evident in the passing of the ordinances related to the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce Act, 2020, and the Farmers' Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. These ordinances were initially passed in the Lok Sabha and later pushed through the Rajya Sabha without a division vote, but only a voice vote. When questioned about this, the Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh claimed he was distracted by the chaos in the House and did not notice the demand for a division vote. This resulted in the bills being passed without proper voting and discussion. These laws, which were passed in such a manner, have stirred up a protest and a mass movement among farmers. The first law removed the monopoly of government-run agriculture markets and allowed the sale of produce outside these markets. However, it also forbade the taxing of these new spaces, which could make the existing markets redundant over time, thereby affecting the farmers' interests in states where these markets were efficiently run. The second law made contract farming possible, but it did not allow farmers to approach the court in case of any defaults by the buyers. Instead, they could only seek resolution through state bureaucracy. Additionally, a third law was also passed that allowed corporations to stock up on essential commodities without any restrictions. The government claimed that these laws were for the benefit of farmers and aimed to double their incomes, but the provisions in the laws seemed to go against the farmers' interests. Apart from their rushed passing, these laws also raised concerns about the violation of the Constitution, as agriculture is a state subject and it is the states' responsibility to legislate laws on this subject. The excuse given by the government was that these laws regulated trade and not agriculture itself. It took a year for the government to acknowledge and apologize for the consequences of these laws. However, this could have been avoided if the government had considered the reactions and consequences of their actions on the lives of millions of Indians. It is concerning that only one person in the country seems to have the power and authority to make such decisions without considering the impact on others. In conclusion, it is important for the government to learn from these incidents and avoid making hasty and arrogant decisions that can deeply affect the lives of people. This should serve as a reminder that unlimited power and authority should not be used carelessly.