Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Government of India Act 1935 was a landmark legislation, representing the culmination of constitutional reforms in British India. It abolished the system of dyarchy introduced by the Government of India Act 1919, replacing it with Provincial Autonomy. This meant that provinces gained greater control over their internal administration, with elected provincial governments responsible to the provincial legislatures. However, this autonomy was far from complete. The Act retained significant powers for the Governor, particularly discretionary powers, which critics argued substantially diluted the spirit of self-governance and rendered the autonomy largely superficial. This answer will elucidate the extent to which the Governor’s overriding powers undermined the Provincial Autonomy granted by the 1935 Act.
The Introduction of Provincial Autonomy
The Government of India Act 1935 introduced Provincial Autonomy in eleven out of the twelve provinces of British India (the exception being Burma, which was separated in 1937). Key features of this autonomy included:
- Elected Provincial Legislatures: Provinces were to have legislatures elected directly by a limited electorate.
- Responsible Government: Provincial governments were to be responsible to their respective legislatures, meaning they required the confidence of the majority.
- Federal Structure (attempted): The Act also envisioned a federal structure for India, though it never fully materialized due to opposition from various political factions.
- Reserved Subjects: While provinces gained control over most administrative subjects, certain subjects like defense, external affairs, and railways remained under the control of the Central Government.
The Governor’s Discretionary Powers: A Check on Autonomy
Despite the provisions for Provincial Autonomy, the Act retained substantial powers for the Governor. These powers, often exercised at the Governor’s discretion, significantly curtailed the autonomy of the provincial governments. Key discretionary powers included:
- Individual Responsibility of Ministers: The Governor could call upon individual ministers to act against the wishes of the cabinet, fostering internal divisions.
- Certification of Bills: The Governor had the power to reserve any bill passed by the provincial legislature for the consideration of the Central Government. This meant the Central Government could veto provincial legislation.
- Administration in Case of Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery: Section 93 of the Act allowed the Governor to take over the administration of a province if the constitutional machinery broke down (i.e., if no party could secure a majority).
- Appointment of Ministers: While the Governor was expected to appoint ministers who commanded a majority in the legislature, the Act did not explicitly mandate this, leaving room for manipulation.
- Emergency Powers: The Governor possessed emergency powers to issue ordinances and override legislative procedures in times of crisis.
Instances of Governor’s Intervention
The discretionary powers of the Governors were frequently used to influence provincial politics and undermine the authority of elected governments. Several instances illustrate this:
- United Provinces (1937): After the 1937 elections, Governor Sir Harry Haig invited the leader of the largest party, the Indian National Congress, to form the government, but initially attempted to form a coalition government, delaying the establishment of Congress rule.
- Bengal (1939): Governor Lord Linlithgow used his discretionary powers to form a government that was not supported by a majority in the legislature, effectively bypassing the democratic process.
- Punjab (1942): During the Quit India Movement, Governors in provinces like Punjab used emergency powers to suppress the movement and arrest Congress leaders, demonstrating the extent of their authority.
- North-West Frontier Province (1947): The Governor, acting on instructions from the Central Government, influenced the referendum on joining Pakistan, raising questions about the fairness of the process.
These interventions demonstrate that the Governors often acted as agents of the British Government, prioritizing imperial interests over the principles of provincial autonomy. The discretionary powers provided a legal framework for the Central Government to control provincial administrations, even when those administrations were led by elected representatives.
| Feature | Dyarchy (1919 Act) | Provincial Autonomy (1935 Act) |
|---|---|---|
| Executive Council | Half elected, half nominated by Governor | Ministers responsible to the legislature |
| Subjects | Reserved & Transferred | Largely provincial control, some reserved subjects |
| Governor’s Powers | Extensive control over reserved subjects | Discretionary powers remained significant |
Conclusion
The Government of India Act 1935 undeniably marked a step forward in constitutional development, replacing the cumbersome system of dyarchy with Provincial Autonomy. However, the extensive discretionary powers vested in the Governors significantly diluted the spirit of this autonomy. These powers allowed the British Government to intervene in provincial affairs, override elected governments, and ultimately maintain control over India’s governance. While the Act provided a platform for Indian participation in administration, it fell short of granting genuine self-governance, leaving a legacy of limited autonomy and continued imperial oversight.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.