The passing of bills without Parliament, including the treasury benches, having any real understanding of what they contained through any rigorous process has accelerated through the Modi era, points out Aakar Patel.
On December 17, Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra asked the Lok Sabha to send the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission Bill, 2025, to the standing committee for suggestions and changes.
Opposition MPs said that the Bill was made available on the members' portal at 5 pm, and amendments were sought by 5:45 pm.
MPs said they should be given at least one day to first read and understand the Bill.
The requests were turned down and the bill was passed by voice vote on December 18. MNREGA, one of our most important laws, has been finished off and we do not really know why.
This passing of bills without Parliament, including the treasury benches, having any real understanding of what they contained through any rigorous process has accelerated through the Modi era.
In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-2009), 60 per cent of the bills were referred to committees for scrutiny.
In the next Lok Sabha (2009-2014), this number was 71 per cent.
In the first Modi government, this fell to 25 per cent.
In the second Modi government (2019-2024) this fell to 16 per cent.
It wilfully undid the parliamentary convention of referring bills to department-related parliamentary standing committees for scrutiny and examination.
The Right to Information law was gutted similarly by pushing through changes in 2019 without sending it to a committee.
As a direct consequence, India's global ranking on the RTI index fell from 2nd to eighth and then ninth.
In 2019, Telegu Desam MPs had joined MPs from the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Communist Party of India-Marxist to express concern at the 'hurried passing' of bills without scrutiny.
They wrote that public consultation -- in which groups and individuals engaged with particular subjects are invited by legislators to put forward their views on prospective legislations -- had also stopped.
'Public consultation is a long established practice where parliamentary committees scrutinise bills, deliberate, engage and work towards improving the content and quality of the legislation,' they wrote.
This had no effect on Modi, and in 2020, not a single bill was sent to a committee for scrutiny.
What is the point of writing this now? It is that the government must learn that often this haste and arrogance produces outcomes that are unwanted.
On September 20, 2020, ordinances that had cleared the Lok Sabha were pushed through the Rajya Sabha on a 'voice vote' and not a division vote, meaning an actual vote where ayes and noes are counted.
The excuse given then was that the individual in control, Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh, was distracted by the disorder in the House and did not notice that a division vote had been demanded.
Rajya Sabha television stopped its live broadcast while this was happening and the microphones of the MPs were switched off.
(The BJP took the cue and followed the same pattern elsewhere. In the Karnataka legislative council, where it lacked a majority, the BJP passed its anti-cow slaughter bill through a voice vote, ignoring the demand for a division vote.)
The two laws given birth in this manner were the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 and the Farmers' (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.
To remind readers: The first law removed the monopoly of government-run agriculture markets, or mandis, and allowed the sale of produce outside these.
It also forbade the taxing of these new spaces. This meant that, over time, the mandis, which are taxed, would become redundant.
This would damage the interests of farmers in those states where the mandis were efficiently run and procurement happened to the satisfaction of farmers.
The second law made contract farming possible.
However, the law said that aggrieved farmers could not move court in case the buyer defaulted -- they could only approach the state bureaucracy for resolution.
A third law undid the banning of hoarding of essential commodities, allowing corporations to stock up as much grain as they wanted.
The Modi government said it had the farmers' interests in mind when it wrote up these legislations (the intent, it was said, was to double the incomes of farmers, which had stagnated over years).
But if that was the case it was unexplained why the laws had provisions which seemed to deliberately go against the interest of the farmers.
Other than the manner in which they were passed, the laws also appeared to violate the Constitution under which agriculture is a state subject.
It is for the states to legislate laws on the subject and not the Union.
Here, the excuse given was that these laws really regulated trade and not agriculture itself.
The bills were signed by the President a week later and became law, triggering a protest that became a mass movement.
Like MNREGA, these were laws that would deeply impact the lives of crores of Indians.
The government did not consider what the reaction from these Indians would be. It was at first surprised and taken aback that there was any pushback at all.
When it became clear that it could not actually get the laws implemented, the prime minister ignored the fallout for a full year. Eventually he apologised and retreated.
But why get into this position in the first place? Why mess with the lives of crores of people with this level of casualness and arrogance? It is hard for the writer and indeed for the reader to say.
One has to believe one has been gifted unlimited power and authority to consider such moves and only one person in this country thinks in that fashion.
Aakar Patel is a columnist and writer and you can read Aakar's earlier columns here.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
© 2026