Introduction
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar openly affirmed in the Constituent Assembly that there was no need to apologize for borrowing administrative provisions from the Government of India (GoI) Act, 1935. With nearly 200 provisions adapted in substance or form, the 1935 Act served as the foundational administrative blueprint for the Constitution of independent India.
Institutional Continuities: The Administrative and Structural Bedrock
The institutional machinery of the 1935 Act was largely retained to ensure administrative stability and legal continuity during the transition to independence.
- Federal Distribution of Powers: The Seventh Schedule's three-fold division—Union, State, and Concurrent Lists—directly replicated the Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent legislative lists under Section 100 of the 1935 Act, as affirmed in M.P.V. Sundararamier v. State of A.P.
- Judicial Architecture: The integrated judicial framework was inherited from the colonial structure. The Supreme Court assumed the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court established under Section 200 of the 1935 Act, retaining original federal dispute jurisdiction (Article 131 / Section 204) and decree enforcement mechanisms (Article 142 / Section 210).
- Executive Ordinance and Emergency Powers: Ordinance-making powers of the President and Governors under Articles 123 and 213 were derived from Sections 42 and 88 of the 1935 Act. Furthermore, President's Rule under Article 356 directly borrowed the mechanism for the breakdown of provincial constitutional machinery from Section 93 of the 1935 Act.
- Administrative and Watchdog Institutions: Crucial bureaucratic apparatuses, including the Union and State Public Service Commissions (Articles 315–323) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (Article 148), mirrored Sections 264 and 166 of the 1935 Act, ensuring seasoned administrative machinery.
Transformative Ruptures: The Democratic Soul
While the institutional skeleton was colonial, the Constitution broke decisively from the 1935 Act by revolutionizing the normative source and purpose of state power.
- Popular Sovereignty versus Imperial Paramountcy: The 1935 Act derived authority from the British Parliament, maintaining colonial suzerainty. In contrast, the Constitution founded its authority upon popular sovereignty rooted in 'We, the People', recognized as an unalterable basic feature in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Justiciable Rights and Social Welfare: The 1935 Act contained no bill of rights and was oriented toward maintaining colonial law and order. The Constitution instituted justiciable Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) to build a socialist, egalitarian welfare state.
- Universal Adult Franchise: The 1935 Act granted a restricted franchise based on property, tax, and literacy (covering barely 10 percent of the adult population) along with communal electorates. Article 326 abolished separate electorates, establishing universal adult suffrage on a common electoral roll.
- Subordination of Discretionary Executive Rule: The extensive discretionary powers and 'special responsibilities' of the colonial Governor-General were substituted with a cabinet system of government, where the executive is strictly bound by ministerial aid and advice, as reiterated in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab.
Conclusion
The Government of India Act, 1935, provided the indispensable institutional architecture and administrative machinery that prevented systemic breakdown during India's transition to self-rule. However, the Constitution transfigured this colonial machinery into an instrument of democratic transformation, socio-economic justice, and constitutional morality.