Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Government of India Act, 1935, was a landmark piece of legislation enacted by the British Parliament, representing the culmination of constitutional reforms in India initiated by the Indian Councils Act of 1861 and further developed through the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919. While often described as ‘federal in structure’, a closer examination reveals a complex system that fell short of a true federal constitution. The Act aimed to grant greater autonomy to Indian provinces, but the extent to which it achieved this, and whether it established a federal framework, remains a subject of debate. This answer will analyze the features of the Act to determine if it can be legitimately termed a federal constitution.
Defining Federalism
Federalism, at its core, involves a constitutional division of powers between a central authority and constituent political units (states or provinces). Key characteristics include a written constitution, division of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), an independent judiciary to interpret the constitution and resolve disputes, and a bicameral legislature, often with representation of states in the upper house.
Features of the Government of India Act, 1935
Provincial Autonomy
The Act introduced provincial autonomy, granting provinces greater control over their internal administration. Provincial legislatures were elected directly, and responsible government was established, meaning the executive was responsible to the legislature. However, this autonomy was limited. The Governor retained significant powers, including the power to veto legislation and administer ‘Governor’s Provinces’ (North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and British Burma) directly.
Federal Structure – A Superficial Resemblance
The Act proposed a federal structure with a Federal Public Service Commission, a Reserve Bank of India, and a Federal Court. It divided powers between the Centre and the Provinces through three lists: Federal List, Provincial List, and Concurrent List. However, this division was heavily skewed in favour of the Centre.
- Residual Powers: All residuary powers were vested in the Central Government, a characteristic typically found in unitary systems.
- Provincial Subordination: Provinces were subordinate to the Centre in many respects. The Centre could make laws for provinces in certain circumstances, and the Governor could act at his discretion.
- Central Control over Finances: The Centre retained significant control over provincial finances, limiting provincial autonomy.
The Federal Court
The Act established a Federal Court in 1937, intended to interpret the constitution and resolve disputes between the Centre and the Provinces. While a positive step, its jurisdiction was limited, and it lacked the power of judicial review in the same way as federal courts in countries like the USA or Canada.
Dyarchy at the Provincial Level (abolished)
While dyarchy (division of subjects between ministers responsible to the legislature and executive councillors not responsible) was abolished at the provincial level, it continued at the Centre, limiting the scope of responsible government.
Was it a Federal Constitution?
Despite the presence of some federal features, the Government of India Act, 1935, did not lay down a truly federal constitution. The Act was essentially a centralized system with some concessions to provincial autonomy. The significant powers retained by the Governor, the Centre’s control over finances, and the lack of a truly independent judiciary undermined the federal character of the Act. The Act was more accurately described as a quasi-federal system or a unitary system with some federal features. The intention of the British government was not to create a fully sovereign federal nation, but rather to maintain control while granting limited self-governance.
| Feature | Federal Characteristic | Act of 1935 – Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Division of Powers | Clear demarcation between Central & Provincial powers | Division existed, but Centre held residuary powers & could legislate for Provinces |
| Independent Judiciary | Judiciary with power of judicial review | Federal Court established, but limited jurisdiction & no full judicial review |
| Financial Autonomy | Provinces control their own finances | Centre retained significant control over provincial finances |
| Constitutional Supremacy | Constitution as the supreme law of the land | British Parliament retained ultimate sovereignty; Act could be amended by British Parliament |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Government of India Act, 1935, incorporated elements resembling a federal structure, it fell short of establishing a true federal constitution. The Act’s inherent centralization, the Governor’s discretionary powers, and the limitations on provincial autonomy prevented it from embodying the core principles of federalism. It represented a step towards greater Indian participation in governance, but remained firmly within the framework of British control, and its federal features were largely superficial. The Act served as a foundation for the subsequent Constitution of India, but the latter decisively embraced a more robust and genuine federal structure.
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.