Contents

 Introduction………………………………………….………………….1
 Background to the Government of India Act, 1919…………...….…..2
 The August Declaration of 1917……………………..………….….…..7
 Constitutional significance of the August Declaration (1917)…..……8
 The Montagu-Chelmsford Proposals………………………………....10
 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919………………………12
 Main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919……………..13
 Preamble………………………………………………………………..13
 Changes introduced in the Provincial Governments……...………...14
 Ministerial Responsibility……………………………………………..16
 Council Secretaries…………………………………………………….17
 Provincial Legislature………...……………………………………….17
 Franchise……………………………………………………………….17
 Communal Representation……………………………...…………….18
 Duration of the Legislative Council…………………………………..18
 Legislative Powers of the Provincial Legislative Council...…………19
 Changes introduced in the Central Government…………...……….19
 Functions of the Government of India………………………………..20
 The Indian States………………………………………………………22
 Changes introduced in the Indian Civil Services……………………22
 Failure of the act 1919…………………………………………………23
 Conclusion………………………………………………...……………26
 Bibliography……………………………………………………………27

Page 1 of 27
Introduction
The Morley-Minto policy envisaged by the Indian Councils Act, 1909 failed to satisfy the
aspirations of the extremists who were persistently making a demand for self-government.
The moderates were also not very happy with the excessive control of the Central
Government over the local Governments. The separate representation of Muslims caused
resentment among the Indian leaders and a motion was proposed in the Imperial Legislature
on January 24, 1911 asking for the discontinuance of the scheme. In consequence, the
partition of Bengal was annulled. The attitude of Britain in the Balkan Wars and the lining up
of Turkey against the British in the War of 1914 had already weakened the loyalty of
Muslims to the British Government. The annulment of partition of Bengal further infuriated
the Muslims against the British bureaucracy and at the same time it led to extremist’s wing of
the Congress to conclude that they could extort more concessions from the British
government by resorting to terrorism. All these factors brought pressure on the British
government to abandon the policy of repression and concede to the Indian demand of
responsible government.

Background to the Government of India Act, 1919

The policy of repression and reforms followed under the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909
generated a feeling of extreme bitterness among the Indian nationalists and they started a
revolutionary movement which gradually spread throughout the country. The extremists like
Lokmanya Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal carried on vigorous propaganda
against British bureaucracy. Consequently, there were terrorist outrages in various parts of
the country. Lord Minto tried to suppress the extremists and revolutionaries by resorting to
enactment of representative laws. He sought the sanction of the Secretary of State for India
for arrests and detentions on a large scale and even suggested promulgation of Martial Law.
But the Secretary of State Mr Morley disagreed with Lord Minto and even warned him
against such repressive measures as they were likely to jeopardise the British interests in
India. He, however, reluctantly accepted Viceroy’s proposal for the enactment of drastic
press-laws.

The Press Act of 1910 was more stringent and comprehensive than the earlier Newspapers
(Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908. The Act widened the definition of seditious publications
so as to leave no scope for the expression of even the most honest opinion. Moreover, it was

Page 2 of 27
the local Government and not the Courts which were to adjudge as to what was seditious and
what was not. Mr Gokhale strongly opposed the Bill in the Supreme Legislative Council and
warned the Government that “force may afford temporary relief but it can never prove a
permanent remedy.” The Act was, however, passed and proved to be a terrible weapon in the
hands of the Executive and was so frequently used that it added to the long list of
“indictments against British rule.”

By this time, the Seditious, Meetings Act, 1907 was to expire in 1910. Therefore, its life was
further extended till March 31, 1911 with a view to providing sufficient time to the new
Governor General who was to succeed Lord Minto, to study the situation and decide whether
to continue the Act or to repeal it. Lord Hardinge, the new Viceroy replaced the Act by the
Seditious Meetings Act, 1911, which was equally repressive like the previous one.

The incident of bomb-throwing on Lord Hardinge in December 1912, eventually led to the
enactment of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1913 which included “conspiracy” as an
independent offence in the Indian Penal Code. The World War-I brought in its wake the
Defence of India Act, 1915 which empowered the Government to intern people without
charge or trial. The Government took advantage of this law and made arbitrary use of this
power. It became apparent that the Defence Act was not only a war measure but was
essentially intended to repress political movement and even to supersede the ordinary
criminal law in some cases.

The developments and circumstances which preceded immediately before the enactment of
the Government of India Act, 1919, otherwise known as Montagu Chelmsford Reforms, are
as follows:

1. Failure of the Repressive Measures.-The repressive policy adopted by the Government

of India miserably failed to suppress the revolutionaries. On the contrary, it encouraged the
terrorists to resort to terrorism, riots and conspiracies as a result of which the number of
political murders and outrages increased considerably. The revolutionaries organised
themselves into several secret societies throughout the country.1 The revolutionary movement
gathered momentum outside India as well. The Indian Home Rule Society was established by
Shyamji Krishnavarma in 1905. This society in its publications vehemently criticised the
Government policies land encouraged Indians to strengthen the Swaraj-movement. One of the

1
In Punjab, Lala Har Dayal organised the revolutionary groups assisted by Ras Bihari and Amirchand. Abhinav
bharat society was a revolutionary organisation under the leadership of Ganesh Sawarkar in Maharashtra.

Page 3 of 27
staunch supporters of this society was Vinayak Domodar Sawarkar, who was keen to
intensify revolutionary activities in India. He took initiative in supplying literature to freedom
fighters in Maharashtra and arranged arms and ammunition for them from London.

The Muslim resentment against the annulment of partition of Bengal in 1911 also contributed
to the spirit of revolt. They characterised this act of the Government as a great concession
granted to Hindus and gross injustice to the Muslims in India. The declaration of war against
Turkey led to Khilafat Movement. Some Indian students from Lahore left their college
studies, in February, 1915 and entered the tribal territory beyond North-West Frontier to join
the German and Turkish mission at Kabul in an attempt to overthrow the Indian Government.
The Muslim League in its session at Karachi in 1913 had already resolved to patch up its
differences with the Indian National Congress which paved the way for communal unity and
common action for the attainment of self-Government for India. The Indian National
Congress in its Madras Session in 1914 welcomed the attitude of Muslim League and
emphasised the need for united action.

2. The Congress-League Concord - In 1915, Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a staunch

nationalist at that time, took initiative of inviting Muslim League to hold its annual session at
the same time and place as the Congress and both the organisations synchronised their
session at Bombay in December same year, The Congress and the League resolved to co-
operate in formulating a scheme of post war reforms and urge upon the British Government
to accept the same. They adopted a joint scheme of constitutional reforms known as
Congress-League Scheme or the Lucknow Pact, 1916 which, according to Montague-
Chelmsford Report was “the latest, most complete and most authoritative presentation of the
claims of the leading Indian political organisations” and worthy of praise as a testimony to
the growing force of national feeling.2

3. Humiliating treatment to Indians in South Africa and other British Colonies- Another
reason that aroused the feeling of indignation among Indians against British regime was the
humiliating treatment meted out to them in South Africa, Canada and other British Colonies.
The Asiatic Registration Act, popularly known as the Black Act was passed by the Transaval
Parliament in March 1907. Another Act3 of the same year completely barred the entry of
Indian newcomers in Transaval. These humiliating measures forced Mahatma Gandhi to

2
Report on the Indian Constitutional Reforms,(1918) Para 27
3
The Act was known as Transval Immigration Registration Act, 1907

Page 4 of 27
launch a Satyagraha campaign in South Africa. The treatment meted out to Satyagrahis in jail
was most inhuman and a number of them died of pneumonia and severe cold. Greatly
perturbed by the loss of Indian life in South Africa, Mr Gokhle urged the Secretary of State
for India to visit South Africa and study the conditions on the spot.

While efforts were being made to repeal the Black Act and the poll tax law, another event
again forced Indians in South Africa to agitate Mr Justice Searle of the Cape Supreme Court
in his judgment dated March 14, 1913 declared all marriages not solemnised in the Christian
fashion and not duly registered to be invalid. Mahatma Gandhi requested the Union
Government to exempt Indians from this law but to no avail. Therefore, he organised a band
of Satyagrahis called ‘Army of Peace’ who marched from New-Castle to the border of
Transaval on 28 October, 1913. The Satyagrah gathered momentum and the “whole Indian
community in South Africa rose like one man to combat the organised tyranny of the race-
conscious arrogant Europeans.” Large subscriptions were raised all over India to which rich
and poor contributed enthusiastically. Surprisingly, Lord Hardinge the Viceroy also
supported the Indian cause and demanded an impartial enquiry into the allegations of
inhuman treatment meted out to Satyagrahis. As a result of this a provisional agreement was
drawn up between General Smut and Mahatma Gandhi which eventually led to the passage of
the Indian Relief Act of 1914. The Act abolished the hated £ 3 poll-tax, validated Indian
marriages and recognised the ‘domicile certificate’ as the conclusive evidence of the right of
the holder to enter the Union. Similar efforts were made by certain Indians from Canada who
voiced the sufferings and grievances of Indians in Canada. This created a political unrest in
India. .

4. Outbreak of World War-I - The First World War which broke out in 1914 had a direct
bearing on the constitutional history of India. It changed the course of political events in the
country and at the same time compelled the British Government to survey the Indian problem
from a ‘new angle of vision’. The great majority of Indians including the Indian National
Congress displayed splendid devotion and loyalty to the British cause and naturally they
expected due regard for showing their solidarity with the British Empire in the vindication of
public law and protection of national rights.4 The Indians felt that the war was for the cause
of liberty and justice. The Indian Princes also favourably responded to the British call and
placed at the disposal of British Government all their resources. The Indian subscription to

4
Keith, A.B: A Constitutional History of India, p. 241.

Page 5 of 27
war loans amounted to euro 7.5 crores. Thousands of Indian soldiers suffered from muddle
and misery while fighting for Britain in Mesopotamian campaign and in Palestine and East
Africa. In short, the exemplary service rendered by India to the British Government during
World War-I obliged the later to grant some substantial concession to the Indians.

There was yet another effect of the World War-I which accelerated the cause of constitutional
reforms in India. The war had infused a new sense of Self-esteem among Indians and given
new force and vitality to India’s demand for self-Government. The constant pronouncements
of British and American Statement that the war for the cause of freedom, democracy and
human rights made Indian masses self-conscious and brought about a political awakening in
the country. The Indians, therefore, claimed equality of treatment and clamoured for
constitutional concessions. Taking a realistic view of these developments, Lord Chelmsford
who succeeded Lord Hardinge in 1916, found no difficulty in holding that self-Government
was the goal of British rule in India.5

5. The Home Rule Movement.-The Irish rebellion had an exciting effect on Indian politics
and Mrs Annie Besant started a Home Rule Movement in India. She formally established a
Home Rule League in a meeting at Madras on September 1, 1916. The object of the Home
Rule Movement was two-fold Firstly, it aimed at affecting the unity of moderates and the
extremists-the two wings of the Congress which had separated in 1907. Secondly, it aimed at
launching an intensive propaganda for Home Rule of Self-Government throughout India. Mrs
Besant carried on her Home Rule Movement in close cooperation with Lokmanya Tilak who
had been released from jail in 1914. Tilak established the Home Rule League for Bombay
region in September, 1916 with headquarters at Pune.

As an immediate reaction of Mrs Annie Besant’s Home Rule Movement, nineteen elected
members of the Supreme Council in October 1916, submitted a memorandum to the British
Government in India containing proposals for post-war reforms. They expressed that they
were no more content with merely the good and efficient Government but wanted a
‘responsible Government’. The memorandum further suggested that in the scheme of future
reforms at least half the members of the Central and Provincial Executive Councils should be
Indians, who were to be selected by the elected members of the respective Legislative
Councils at both levels. The Supreme Legislative Councils should consist of not less than 150
members whereas the membership of the Provincial Legislative Councils should be 100 in

5
Keith, A.B: A Constitutional History of India, p. 242.

Page 6 of 27
case of a major Province and 60 to 75 in the case of minor Provinces. The system of direct
election should be followed and jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Legislatures should
be clearly defined. The post of Secretary of State for India should be abolished. The
memorandum contained that the provincial autonomy should be granted to the Provinces and
India must be equated with the Dominion countries.

6. Political unrest due to Annie Besant’s internment.-The Government of Madras and

Bombay were greatly purturbed by the vigorous propaganda launched under the Home Rule
Movement. The Defence of India Act, 1915 and Press Act, 1910 were extensively used by
these Governments to restrain Mrs Besant, Mr Tilak and other revolutionary activists.
Provoked by the activities of the revolutionaries, Lord Pentland, the Governor of Madras
observed in the Madras Legislative Council that “all thoughts of early grant of responsible
self-Government should be entirely out of mind”. He also ordered the internment of Mrs
Annie Besant along with her two colleagues.6 This created great storm and the whole of the
atmosphere became very tense. The All-India Congress Committee condemned the action of
the Madras Government and made a strong representation to the Viceroy for the acceptance
of India’s demand for Self-Government or Swaraj and Immediate release of the interned
leaders. Viceroy turned a deaf ear to the representation made by the Indian National Congress
was decided to resort to passive resistance movement which Mahatma Gandhi had
successfully experimented in South Africa. But the government soon realised the implications
and released Mrs Annie Besant and her two associates. Mrs Besant was later elected as the
Indian National Congress for the session of 1917.

The August Declaration of 1917

“Political agitation in India”, observed G.N. Singh, “reached the highest point in July and
August, 1917”. The publication of the Report of Mesopotamian Commission condemned the
Government of India and the Secretary of State for conducting the Mesopotamians campaign
in a deplorable way. Lord Hardinge tactfully, succeeded in shifting a great part of the blame
on British War Office. In a speech during the debate on the Report of the Mesopotamian
Commission in the House of Commons Mr Montagu, an ex Under Secretary of State for India
blamed the Government of India for its rigidity and characterised it as “too unrealistic to be
of any use for the modern purposes.”

6
The other two associates of Mrs Annie Besant were G.S. Arundale and B.P. Wadia.

Page 7 of 27
The statement made by Montagu in British Parliament furnished a soothing ground for the.
Indian Nationalist Press to voice the demand for immediate change in the Government of
India. In the meantime the war situation grew worse and the people of India readily offered to
help but wanted definite promise of swaraj in near future. Consequently, realising the gravity
of the situation Mr Montagu was appointed as Secretary of State for India in place of
Chamberlain who had resigned. The Government announced removal of the ban which
excluded Indians from the Commissioned ranks in the Army. On August 20, 1917 Mr
Montagu made the historic declaration in the House of Commons which said that “the policy
of His Majesty’s Government with which the Government of India is in complete accord, is
that of increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual
development of self-governing institutions with a view to progressive realisation of the
responsible Government in India as an integral, part of the British Empire…”7. He further
announced that His Majesty’s Government had decided to send him to India almost
immediately for the purposes of consultation and enquiry.

An analysis of the Declaration, of August 20, 1917 indicates that it broadly contained four
assurances:

 The self-Government within the Indian Empire was the ultimate goal of British Rule
in India.
 The self-Government was not to be given forthwith but was to be given in stages.
 The successive stages were to be determined by the progress made by the Indians.
 The British Parliament and the Government of India alone were to judge the time and
measure for each advance.

Constitutional significance of the August Declaration (1917):

The declaration of August 20, 1917 was a great landmark in the constitutional history of
India. It was the first momentous announcement of British policy towards India. Even since
the transfer of power from Company to the Crown, the Queen’s “Proclamation” of 1858 had
remained the basis of the British policy for a period of sixty years, when it gave place to this
historic declaration of Montagu in 1917. This declaration served a basis of British policy till
the Independence of India.

7
Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, p. 1.

Page 8 of 27
The declaration is also significant for it declared officially for the first time that India would
be treated like other dominions of the British Commonwealth and it laid down in
unambiguous terms that self-Government was the ultimate goal of British policy in India. The
declaration thus constituted the first milestone towards the grant of responsible Government
to the people of India.

Montagu’s Declaration of August, 1917 was indeed a revolutionary step in the sense that it
promised responsible Government to India-a concession which was categorically denied by
Mr Morley in 1908. Mr Morley had emphatically declared that he had no intention of
introducing a Parliamentary form of Government in India. Thus it would be seen that the
course of events during nine years (1908-17) had taken such a turn that the British rulers were
obliged to change their policy towards India.

That apart, the August Declaration of 1917 furnished a basis for the Indian National Congress
to intensify its activities towards the achievement of Swami. Once the British Government
had committed itself to a formula and laid down its ultimate policy, it could not go back from
its commitments. Thus the Declaration indirectly helped to inculcate a sense of confidence
and hope among the nationalists that their struggle for freedom had borne fruits. Encouraged
by this achievement, they intensified their freedom movement.

This does not, however, mean that the Declaration was free from defects. Its greatest demerit
was that there was no specific mention as to the time and final stage when responsible
Government would be granted to the people of India. The machinery devised under the
Declaration, observes Coupland,“was hardly calculated to pave the way to liberty.” The fact
that Indian progress was to be judged jointly by the British Parliament and Government of
India was inconsistent with the spirit of liberty. Moreover, the announcement provided no
time limit for each subsequent progress which rendered the Declaration vague and
unsatisfactory. That apart, the Declaration had a negative effect from the point of view of
national unity. The moderates took it as a great achievement while the extremists regarded it
as a useless document. The Muslims noticed in it at once a victory of Hindu nationalism and
a direct threat to Muslim community. Despite, these shortcomings, Declaration of August 20,
1917 marked, “the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one" in the process of
constitutional advancement in India.

Page 9 of 27
The Montagu-Chelmsford Proposals:

Immediately after the August Declaration of 1917 was made in the House of Commons, the
Government of India in Shimla and a Committee of the India Office in London devoted
themselves in the preliminary consideration of the problem involved. As already expressed in
the Declaration of August 1917, Mr Montagu, the Secretary of State for India accompanied
by a strong delegation, reached Bombay on November 10, 1917. The object of the Montagu-
Mission was to make an enquiry into the political conditions in India, to hear the views of the
people and of the Government officials and to formulate proposals in consultation with the
Viceroy. Montagu conferred with the Viceroy, the Government of India and the Governors of
Provinces and several Indians representing variety of people and interest. He earnestly
desired that the whole scheme of reforms should come from the Indians themselves. Mr
Montagu had to strain hard to make the Viceroy’s Executive Council, the Heads of the
Provincial Governments, and the European Members of the Services agreeable to his scheme
of reforms. He had to make large concessions to recalcitrant elements. The result was that the
scheme which finally emerged possessed none of that grandeur which Mr Montagu had
intended it to possess.

The second and the more important task before Montagu Mission was to keep the Indian
nationalists and revolutionaries engaged in deliberations and negotiations with the Secretary
of State and his associates so that their attention be diverted from agitations and revolutionary
activities and they were induced to help the British Government in the prosecution of war
which had reached a most critical state during the year 1917. Montagu himself claimed that
even if he failed to evolve an agreed scheme he had done something for which the Cabinet at
Home ought to be grateful to him. He wrote, “I have kept India quiet for six months at a
critical period of the war; I have set the politicians thinking of nothing else but my mission.”
While finishing his Report on April 21, 1918, Mr Montagu observed that the main principle
involved in his scheme of Reforms was that “instead of founding the Indian Government on
the confidence of the people of England, we are to gradually found it on the confidence of the
people of India.”

The Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms known as the Montagu Chelmsford Report was
published on July 8, 1918. The authors of the Report admitted in their preliminary survey that
the machinery of Government in India as it existed did not meet the needs of the time. It
worked slowly. There was a pressing demand from the educated Indians to reform the

Page 10 of 27
working of the government and this suggestion was supported by the official opinion also.
The report contained four governing principles which were to be embodied in, the new
constitutional structure for the country. They were

 As far as possible there should be complete popular control in local bodies and they
should be free from outside influences.
 The steps for the progressive realisation of responsible Government should begin
from the Provinces. To make a beginning, the Provinces should be given some
measure of responsibility in legislative, administrative and financial matters of the
Government. However, the Provinces were to be given complete responsibility as
soon as the conditions permitted.
 The Government of India was to remain wholly responsible to Parliament. The Indian
Legislative Council was to be enlarged and made mom representative in character.
 The control of the Parliament and the Secretary of State over the Government of India
and Provincial Government was to be relaxed gradually in proportion to the
constitutional changes introduced in the light of this scheme of Reforms.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Report merely enunciated the principles on questions relating to

the functions of Central and Provincial Governments, franchise, and the relations between the
Secretary of State in Council, the Government of India and the Provincial Governments. To
complete the work, three Committees were appointed as suggested in the Report, These were:

 The Franchise Committee

 The Functions Committee
 The Committee on the Reorganisation of the India Office.

The Franchise Committee:

The Franchise Committee under the president ship of Lord South Borough was to advise the
Government on the franchise and constituencies in each Province and was to devise a scheme
of direct elections as for as possible. It was also to consider as to how the territorial
representation would give adequate representation to various interests and minorities in the
Provincial Legislative Councils. It was also to suggest on the strength of the Provincial
Councils and the number of nominated official members to be included in each of the
Provincial Council.

Page 11 of 27
The Functions Committee:

The Functions Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Richard Feetham was to advise
about the functions that should be transferred to the Provinces and the extent and nature of
control to be retained by the Government of India for the discharge of its responsibilities. It
was also to recommend the departments of the administration which could be transferred to
the Ministers.8

The Committee for reorganisation of India Office:

The Committee for the Reorganisation of India Office was appointed in February 1918 under
the Presidentship of Lord Crewe. It suggested that Council of India be abolished and the
Secretary of State should be assisted by an Advisory Board to which he might refer such
matters as he deemed necessary.

The Board was to consist of not more than twelve members, one-third being persons
domiciled in India and selected from a panel of names submitted by the non-official members
of the Indian Legislature. The Committee also recommended the appointment of a High
Commissioner for India who was to exercise agency functions on behalf of the Government
of India in London.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919

The Franchise and the Functions Committees presented their Reports to the Government of
India on March 10, 1919. To give effect to the proposed constitutional changes a Bill was
introduced in House of Commons on May 29, 1919 by Mr Montagu. It was referred to a Joint
Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament for consideration. The Joint Select
Committee examined about seventy witness both official and non-official, Indians and
British. The Committee proposed the inclusion of August, 1917 Declaration as preamble to
the proposed Government of India Bill, 1919. The Joint Parliamentary Committee drew up its
final report which was accepted by House of Commons and the Bill was amended
accordingly. The Bill was passed by House of Commons on December 5, 1919 and by House
of Lords on December 18, 1919. It received Royal assent on December 23, 1919. Before it
could come into force, it had to be supplemented by Rules. The Rules so framed under the

8
The Franchise and Functions Committees were to meet in joint session whenever deemed necessary.

Page 12 of 27
Act were published by the Government of India on July 20, 1920, and the Government of
India Act, 1919 finally came into force with effect from January 1, 1921.

Main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919:

The Government of India Act, 1919 is a great landmark in the constitutional history of India.
It marks the beginning of a responsible Government in the country. It also brought about
many remarkable changes in the administrative set up of the Indian Government and
introduced some minor changes in the Government at Home, i.e., India Council in Britain.
The provincial autonomy, the system of dyarchy, the bicameral system of legislature at
Centre, the enlargement of Provincial Legislatures, the consolidation of separate electorates,
the special powers of the Governors and Governor-General, the division of subjects under
two lists, and the creation of a Chamber of Princess were some of the notable features related
to the Provincial as well as the Central Government in India. The reorganisation of India
Council, the creation 0f the office of the High Commissioner for India and relaxation in the
control of the Secretary of State were some other important changes effected by the Act in the
Home Government controlling Indian administration from Whitehall.

Preamble:

As stated earlier the Government of India Act, 1919 in its preamble contained the whole part
of the Declaration made by His Majesty’s Government in the British Parliament in August,
1917. Sir Tej Bhadur Sapru analysed it as follows:-

 British India was to remain an integral part of the British Empire;

 Responsible Government in India was the objective of the declared policy of
Parliament;
 The responsible Government was capable of progressive realisation only; and
 In order to achieve responsible Government it was necessary to provide for two
things, namely, the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration
and gradual development of self-governing institutions.

The statement of policy and methods of its attainment as contained in the preamble were
emphasised in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor General who was to be vigilant
in implementing these policies at Centre and in the local governments of all Presidencies and
Provinces.

Page 13 of 27
I. Changes introduced in the Provincial Governments:

Before the introduction of Reforms envisaged under the Government of India Act, 1919,
British India comprised fifteen Provinces of Which three were headed by Governors-in-
Council, four by Lieutenant-Governors and eight by Chief Commissioners. By the Act of
1919, the Provinces of U.P., Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, Central Provinces and Assam were
also to be governed by Governor-in-Council thus raising the total number of Governor’s
Provinces to eight. The Act, however, did not raise Burma to the status of Governor’s
Province. The Province of North-West Frontier was made a Governor’s Province in 1931.

(1) Division of subjects between Centre and Provinces.-The central theme of Montford
Reforms was to make a beginning to the Provincial autonomy in local governments in India.
This implied freedom of control from above and also in a sense, transfer of power to the
people. To achieve this object, the subjects of administration and sources of income were
divided and grouped in two lists called to (i) Central subjects, and (ii) the Provincial subjects.
The subject which concerned whole of India or more than one Province and necessitated a
uniform policy were enumerated in the Central list and included defence, foreign and political
relations, public debt, customs, post and telegraphs, currency, communication (i.e., railways,
aircraft and inland waterways), All India Services, civil and criminal law and procedures, etc.
The subjects such as, public health, sanitation, education, public works, irrigation, forests,
agriculture; excise, veterinary department, fisheries and co-operative societies, famine relief,
land revenue, police and prisons, etc. were included in the Provincial list to be dealt with by
the local governments. It is, however, to be noted that the division of functions was not as
definite as in a federation. In case of doubt whether a particular matter lay within the
competence of the Central or Provincial Government, the decision of the Governor General
was final. All matters not specially declared to be provincial subjects were to be considered
as central subjects. This, is other words, meant that under this scheme the residuary powers
were vested in the Central Government.

The Government of India Act, 1919 also introduced division in the sources of revenue.
However, with a view to meeting the deficit of the Central Government, a system of
provincial contribution was devised which was to cease as soon as the Government of India
was able to develop its own resources to meet the entire expenditure. The division of sources
of revenue was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Meston Committee.
Land revenue and income from excise, irrigation, forests, stamps and registration fees etc.

Page 14 of 27
was assigned to the Provinces while the income from customs, income-tax, railways, posts
and telegraphs, salt and opium was to go to the Centre. However, 25% of the income-tax
collections in the Provinces were to be appropriated by each of the Provinces.

The Devolution Rules framed under the Act of 1919 also provided for legislative devolution
and gave power to the Provincial Legislatures to make laws for the good government of the
Province. The previous sanction of the Governor General was no longer necessary to legislate
on any provincial subject except in certain exceptional cases.

The statutory rules framed under the Act provided that the Governor General could exercise
control and issue directions only for the purposes of safeguarding the administration of
central subjects, to decide questions arising between two Provinces if they failed to settle
them mutually for preserving the imperial interests.

(2) Dyarchy in Provinces.-The Montagu-Chelmsford Report emphasised that steps towards

the progressive realisation of responsible Government should first be taken in Provinces.
They were, however convinced that ‘complete responsibility was not possible at that time and
it would lead to complete breakdown. Therefore, the scheme envisaged under the
Government of India Act, 1919 contemplated the transference of responsibility for certain
functions of the Government to the elected representatives of the people in the Provinces
while reserving control of the Governor over others. The system so introduced was known as
‘dyarchy’. The provincial subjects were divided into two classes, viz. the ‘Transferred’ and
the ’Reserved’ subjects.9 Among the Transferred’ subjects were included the local self-
government, education, medical administration, sanitation and public health, public works,
agriculture, development of industries, veterinary department, fisheries and co-operative
societies. The ’Reserved’ subjects included finance, land revenue. famine relief, justice,
police, prison, criminal law and procedure and the control Of newspapers and print media,
irrigation, mines, electricity, public services, etc. The responsibility for the proper
administration of the ‘Reserved’ subjects lay with the Governor-in-Council of the Province
while the ‘Transferred’ subjects were controlled by the Governor acting with his Minister. It
Would thus be evident that with the introduction the system of dyarchy in eight Governor’s
Provinces the executive government of each of these Provinces consisted of two parts, one

9
Section 45 (1) (d) of the government of India Act, 1919 provided for rules being framed by the government of
transfer for among the provincial subjects.

Page 15 of 27
comprising the Governor and his Executive Council and the other consisting of the Governor
acting through his Ministers.

(3) The Provincial Executive.-With the introduction of ’Dyarchy’ under the Government of
India Act, 1919 the executive government in the Province was split into two distinct parts.
One comprising the Governor-in-Council, while the other consisting of the Governor and his
Ministers, the one almost foreign the other wholly Indian, the one in charge of reserved
subjects the other of transferred subjects, the one responsible to the Government of India the
other to the Provincial Legislature. The Governor of the Province played a pivotal role in the
new system. He was appointed for a term of five years by His Majesty. The members of the
Executive Council of the Governor were also appointed by His Majesty for five years’ and on
salaries fixed by the Act and were charged upon the revenue or the Province. The number of
executive councillors was not to exceed four, of whom one must be person who had served
the Crown in India for at least twelve years. In practice, there were four members in the
Executive Council in each of the Provinces of Bengal, Madras and Bombay with two Indian
members while in other Provinces there were two Executive Councillors, one of whom was
an Indian. All members of the Executive Council were ex officio members of the Legislative
Council but they were not responsible to the latter.

Ministerial Responsibility

The Act of 1919 made a genuine effort to provide a responsible Government in Provinces by
appointing Ministers who were to guide the Governor for the administration of transferred
subjects. The Governor was to act on the advice of his Ministers so far decisions relating to
transferred subjects were concerned unless he had sufficient cause to dissent from their
advice, in which case he could take action otherwise than in accordance with that advice.
There was no statutory limit to the number of ministers. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report
proposed that every Governor should have one or more ministers but the Joint Parliamentary
Committee recommended that there should be at least two ministers in each Governor’s
Province. In actual practice there were three ministers in each of the Presidencies,‘ the United
Provinces and Punjab, and two in each of the others four provinces. The ministers were to be
the elected members of the Provincial Legislative Council. If they were not so elected at the
time of their appointment, they were required to get themselves elected within a period of six
months. They were appointed by the Governor and held office during his pleasure. In case of
emergency arising out of the resignation of a minister the other minister was asked to add the

Page 16 of 27
subject to his charge, or when this could not be possible, the Governor himself could take
charge of these subjects temporarily.

Council Secretaries

The Governor of the Province was empowered to appoint in his discretion, Council
Secretaries from among the non-official members of the Council. They held office during his
pleasure and performed the duties of assisting members of the Executive and the Ministers in
their Work.

Provincial Legislature

With the introduction of responsible Government in each of the eight major Provinces the
question of reforming the Legislatures of these Provinces assumed great importance.
Montford Report did not favour the proposal to establish second chambers in the Provinces
but instead stressed on the need to enlarge the size, of the Legislative Council with a
substantial elected majority with such communal and special representation as may be
deemed necessary. The members were to be elected by direct franchise and the size of the
Legislative Council was to depend on its population. Thus, unicameral Legislature called the
’Legislative Council’ was set up in each of the eight Provinces under the Act of 1919. Similar
Legislative Council was formed in Burma in 1923 when it was raised to a Governor’s
Province. The Act also provided that at least 70 per cent members of a Council should be
elected members and not more than 20 per cent should be official members. The Montagu-
Chelmsford Report did not contemplate abolition of the ’official element’ in the Legislative
Councils. The official experience of these members was greatly advantageous to steady
discussion in the Council. The Members of the Executive Council were ex officio members
of the Legislative Council. The official members were, however, disqualified for contesting
election. If a non-official member accepted office in the service of the Crown in India, his
seat in the Council was deemed to have fallen vacant. The Legislative Council also consisted
of non-official members nominated by the Governor. This was with a view to redressing
inequalities in giving representation to different classes or communities which might
otherwise go unrepresented.

Franchise

Page 17 of 27
Montford Report had recommended direct system of election for Provincial Legislatures.
Therefore, the Provincial Councils set up under the Act of 1919 consisted of members who
were directly elected by the people. The normal qualifications for the voter was residence
within the constituency and payment of a small amount by way of land-revenue, rent or local
rates in rural areas and municipal rates in urban areas. All persons who paid Income-tax and
all retired, pensioners or discharged officers or men of regular forces had right to vote.
Women were initially denied franchise but the Provincial Councils were empowered to
remove this disqualification. Those who were not British subjects or were below 21 years of
age or of unsound mind were not eligible for voting.

Communal Representation

As regards the communal representation, Montagu-Chelmsford Report did not favour it

because it was considered injurious to the development of responsible Government.
Nevertheless, this concession had to be extended to Muslims on account of the earlier
commitments. Similar representation was allowed to Sikhs in Punjab. The Franchise
Committee further extended this concession to Indian Christians, Europeans and Anglo-
Indians. The Joint Parliamentary Committee recommended reservation of seats in the
Legislative Council to Marathas in Bombay and non-Brahmins in Madras. In addition to
communal electorates, the Act also provided for special representation to different groups and
interests such as, landlords, zamindars, universities, chambers of commerce, plantation and
mining interests and mill owners associations.

Duration of the Legislative Council

The normal duration of the Legislative Council was three years. It could be dissolved even
earlier by the Governor. He could also extend the life of the Legislative Council for a period
not exceeding one year. The Act also provided for the appointment of a President and Deputy
President for the legislative Council. Hitherto, the Governor himself used to preside but under
the Act he ceased to be a member of the Council though his right of addressing the Council
was still recognised. To begin with, the President of the Council was to be appointed by the
Governor for a term of four years but thereafter the Council was to elect its own President
from among its members. The Deputy President was, however elected by the members of the
Council and was not a Governor’s appointee.

Legislative Powers of the Provincial Legislative Council

Page 18 of 27
The Provincial Legislative Council was given the power to make laws “for the peace and
good Government” of the Province. But this power was restricted in several ways. Firstly, the
devolution rules required the sanction of the Governor-General in several cases. Secondly, the
Governor was given the power of passing legislation on reserved subjects despite its rejection
by the Legislative Council. Thirdly, the Governor was empowered to stop, at any stage, the
consideration of a bill on the ground that it affected peace and tranquillity of the Province.
Lastly, the Governor as well as the Governor-General could veto the Bills passed by the
Legislative Council or could return the measure to the Council for reconsideration. In
addition the Crown had the power of disallowing any enactment of provincial legislature.

II Changes introduced in the Central Government

Montagu-Chelmsford Report did not propose any change in the character of the Government
at the Centre and wanted the Government of India to remain wholly responsible to the British
Parliament. Nevertheless, it was deemed necessary to enlarge the Indian Legislative Council
and make it more responsible.10 Therefore, the Government of India Act, 1919 reconstituted
the Central Legislature. There were to be two chambers of the Central Legislature in future,
namely, the Council of State and the Indian Legislative Assembly.

(1) The Executive Council

The Constitution of Viceroy’s Executive Council was slightly modified. The maximum limit
imposed on the membership of the Executive Council was removed and pleaders of the
Indian High Courts with ten year’s standing practise were eligible for membership of the
Executive Council. The Act provided for the appointment of Council Secretaries from among
the members of the Indian Legislative Assembly. Three members of the Executive Council
were to possess the qualification of ten years’ experience in the service of the Crown in India.
Three Indians were appointed to the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Joint
Parliamentary Committee.

(2) The Governor General-in-Council

The Central Government comprised the Governor-General-in-Council with eight members

including the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief who looked after the Army
Department, The remaining six members were placed in charge of Home Finance,

10
Report of the Indian Constitutional Reforms (1918), Para 190

Page 19 of 27
Legislature, Commerce including Railways, Education, Health, and Lands and Industry and
Labour Departments. Each Executive Councillor was to be a member of one or the other
House of the Central Legislature. With the election or nomination of a member to the
Governor-General’s Council, his seat in the House to which he belonged was to be deemed to
have fallen vacant.

The Governor General presided over the meetings of the Executive Council. In his absence
the Executive Member whom the Governor General appointed as Vice-President was to
preside in the meetings. The Presiding Officer and one member (other than Commander-in-
Chief) formed the quorum and exercised functions of the Government of India. The decisions
in the Executive Council were taken by majority votes. In case of equality of votes the
Governor General was empowered to veto the majority decision if in his opinion safety or
tranquillity of British India or any part thereof was affected. In actual practice only more
important matters were decided at the meetings of the Executive Council and matters of
routine were disposed of by the Member in charge of the Department concerned.

Functions of the Government of India-

The Government of India was to administer the central subjects. In addition, it had two more
functions to perform which were as follows:

(i) The Government of India was entrusted with the power of superintendence, direction and
control over Provincial Government in respect of all reserved subjects. In regard to
transferred subjects, the supervision and interference of the Government of India was
required either to safeguard the administration of central subjects or to decide disputed
questions between two Provinces or to safeguard Civil Services in India.

(ii) The Government of India was also responsible for administration of all subjects within
the area of British India not included within the boundaries of the nine Governor’ s
Provinces.3 The areas were governed by the Chief Commissioner and the local Executives
were merely agencies of the Government of India. The revenue and expenditure relating to
these Commissionaires were part of the Central budget.

(3) The Central Legislature

The Central Legislature established under the Act of 1919 consisted of two Chambers,
namely, the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly.

Page 20 of 27
(i) The Council of State - The authors of Montagu-Chelmsford Report while conceding to an
elected majority in Legislative Assembly, established a Council of State as a second Chamber
in which Government will be able to command a majority. Under the Rules framed by the
Government of India, the Council of State was to consist not more than sixty members, of
whom not more than twenty were officials. Election of the members was to be direct but
franchise for the Council was extremely restricted. It was based on high property
qualifications so that only a few wealthy land owners and merchants could secure
representation in this upper Chamber. For instance, in Madras only those having property
fetching annual income of Rs. 3,000/or paying land-revenues worth Rs. 1,300 or income-tax
on at least Rs. 20,000/could vote for Council of State. Other qualifications for the voters
included membership of the University Senate or holding of certain specified title, etc. The
women could neither contest elections nor vote in the election for Council State. The term of
the Council was five years unless it was dissolved earlier. The President of the Council of
State was nominated by the Governor General from amongst its members. Decisions were
taken by majority votes and the President had a casting vote.

(ii) The Legislative Assembly- The lower House called the Indian Legislative Assembly
consisted of 143 members, of whom 103 were elected and 40 were nominated. Of the forty
nominated members, 26 were official members and 14 were nominated non-officials.

The Governor General was not a member of either House but he could address any House.
The franchise qualifications for Assembly seats were also very high. Thus in Madras only
those who paid income-tax or land revenue not less than Rs. 50/ per annum or a municipal tax
not less than Rs. 20/ per annum were eligible to vote. The allocation of seats in the
Legislative Assembly among the Provinces was not on the basis of population but upon the
importance of each Province. Thus, the Province of Bombay because of its commercial
importance was given equal representation with Madras though its population was not even
half than that of Madras. Similarly, Punjab with two-third of population of Bihar and Orissa
was given the same number of seats because of the former’s military importance.

The normal duration of Legislative Assembly was three years. The Governor General could
dissolve the Assembly even earlier. But in such a case he was to hold next session within not
more than six months or with the sanction of Secretary of State for India, not more than nine
months from the date of dissolution. He could also adjourn or prorogue the Assembly. The

Page 21 of 27
first President of the Assembly was nominated by the Governor General for four years after
which he was to be elected by the Assembly itself.

III. The Indian States:

Recognising the importance of the native States, the Act proposed the constitution of a
Chamber of Princes so that consultation with the Heads of these States could be possible. The
Chamber of Princes was set up at Delhi on February 8, 1921 by a Royal Proclamation. The
inaugural ceremony was performed by the Duke of Connaught in the Diwani-Am of Moghul
Palace in Delhi on behalf of the King-Emperor. The Chamber also called as ‘Narendra
Mandal’ was to meet annually for discussion on issues of common interest. The Chamber
represented 108 ruling Princes and twelve representatives of the ruling Chiefs. The Viceroy
was its President. A Standing Committee comprising four or five members of the Chamber of
Princes advised the political Department of the Government on questions referred to it.
Disputes between two States or a State and a local Government or the Government of India
were referred to for report by a Commission presided over by a Judge and consisting of the
nominee of either side. If the Viceroy could not accept their finding, he could refer it to the
Secretary of State. Similarly, allegations and charges against a ruler were to be entrusted to a
Judge, two ruling princes and two other persons. All important states were placed in direct
relations with the viceroy instead of the local governments.

IV. Changes introduced in the Indian Civil Services:

The Government of India Act, 1919 also contained provisions regularising the position of the
civil services in India.1 All existing rules relating to civil services were retained but they
could, however, be altered by the rules made in future. The power of making rules, regarding
the classifications of the civil services in India, methods of recruitment and conditions of
their services, pay and allowances, discipline and conduct was vested with the Secretary of
State in Council who could delegate his power to the Governor General-in-Council or the
local Governments. The Secretary of State in Council could also authorise the Central or
Provincial Legislatures to regularise the public services subject to the condition that the rules
so framed would not be to the disadvantage of civil servants appointed before the
commencement of the Act of 1919. No civil servant could be dismissed by an authority
inferior to that by which he was appointed and the Secretary of State could reinstate any
dismissed person. The Act of 1919 also authorised the establishment of a Public Service

Page 22 of 27
Commission in India2 with not more than five members to hold office for five years but with
eligibility for reappointment and removable only by the Secretary of State in Council. Its
functions extended to the recruitment and control of civil services. The Secretary of State was
to make rules to facilitate the entry of Indians to the Indian Civil Service3. Section 39 of the
Act also provided that no office could be added or taken off from the civil service list and no
remuneration could be varied without consultation by the Government concerned within the
financial authority designated in the rule and the Secretary of State could appoint an Auditor
General with such functions as assigned to him.

Failure of the act 1919

(1) The powers of Governor-General under the Act of 1919, virtually made him a
constitutional dictator-Though the reforms introduced under the Act of 1919 added a
second Chamber to the Central Legislature and increased the number of its elected members,
yet it failed to establish even partial responsible Government at the Centre. The Central
Legislature had no share in vital matters such as controlling the Executive, formulating
legislation and directing the finances. Almost sixty per cent of the budget was excluded from
the vote of the Legislative Assembly which constituted the lower House of the Central
Legislature. Moreover, the Governor General had wide discretionary powers in matters of
finance and he could restore any demand refused by the Central Legislature. In case of
emergency he was the sole judge to take decision on any financial matter. Thus Legislature
had no financial powers and its legislative powers were also sufficiently curtailed. The
Governor General could withhold any Bill from his assent of could amend it the way he
liked. He could certify and Bill and sign it as a permanent law despite Legislature’s
opposition to it. The second Chamber called the Council of State was so constituted that it
provided an additional safeguard for the Government.

(2) Absence of responsible Government at the Centre-The Government of India Act, 1919,
no doubt contained provisions regarding the additional of a few more Indian members to
Viceroy’s Executive Council but they tended to be merely, yes-men to the Executive Council
in order to retain their position. Commenting adversely on the absence of even a partially
responsible Government at the Centre.

(3) The system of communal electorate encouraged fractionalism among the Indians-
The Act of 1919 extended communal representation to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Europeans

Page 23 of 27
and Anglo-Indians besides the Muslims. Provisions were also made for electorates
representing special interest, such as universities, trade and commerce, landholders etc. This
obviously led to clash of interest between the different groups of India society. The
communal representation originated by Morley-Minto in 1909 and consolidated by Montague
Chelmsford Reforms widened the differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities in
India which eventually paved way to partition of India in 1947.

(4) Restricted franchise was against the principle of democracy and self-Government.-
The franchise for both the Houses of the Central Legislature was extremely restricted. High
property qualifications, such as payment of land revenue worth Rs. 1300/ or Income-tax on
not less than Rs. 20,000/a year in Province of Madras, or membership of University-Senate,
prescribed by the Act for Council of State made the “Upper House the representative and
custodian of the vested interests of Zamindars and the capitalist classes”. Similar restrictions
on franchise also existed for the Legislative Assembly. These limitations and undemocratic
character of the Legislature were a glaring defect in the Reforms introduced by the Act of
1919.

(5) The political atmosphere of the country at the time of the introduction of the
Montague-Chelmsford reforms was not favourable - One of the main causes which
accounted for the breakdown of the system of reforms envisaged by the Act of 1919 was that
they were introduced at a time when the conditions in India were not suited to any political
reforms. The Defence of India Act which was a war-time measure expired in 1917 and the
Government wanted a fresh measure to suppress anti-British propaganda and revolutionists in
India. Therefore, a Committee under the leadership of Rowlatt was appointed which
submitted its report in October, 1918. The recommendations of Rowlatt Committee came in
the form of Rowlatt Bill which soon became an Act despite strong opposition from the
Indians. To add to the distrust and discontent of the Indian masses, and Jallianwala Bagh
incident, at Amritsar on April 13, 1919, created horror and hatred for British rule in the minds
of Indians.

Another unlucky state that cast an evil eye upon the inauguration of Reforms was the Khilafat
Movement organised by Muslims in India in protest against the treaty of Severes, in 1920.
The Muslims thought that their loyalty to British during World War-I “counted for nothing in
the day of victory”. The Congress also joined hands with Muslims in the Khilafat Movement
with a view to embarrassing the British Government.

Page 24 of 27
The cumulative effect of these events completely destroyed the goodwill which alone could
have animated the inauguration of Reforms of 1919. The new Indian Legislatures could not
function properly in an atmosphere of agitation and attitude of indifference towards the
British. The phraseology of the Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919 made it clear
that the British rulers themselves were not very sure about the successful working of the
Reforms. They considered the constitutional changes introduced by the Act of 1919 as
experiment rather than a beginning of a well-defined Constitution.

Page 25 of 27
Conclusion:

The Reforms introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919 were not appreciated by the
Indian leaders. The people in general denounced them as a ‘poor reward for Indian’s
services’ while the Indian National Congress characterised them as wholly ‘inadequate,
unsatisfactory and disappointing’. The scheme of reforms did not satisfy even the moderates
who felt that their hopes were duped. The Reforms suffered from many grave defects, some
of them being due to the complex and complicated system of dyarchy introduced in
Provinces, the absence of responsible Government in the Centre and consolidation of separate
electorates. The system of dyarchy introduced by the Act of 1919 in the Provinces was a
complex system having no logical basis and was rooted in compromise. The system operated
in a spirit of harmony, goodwill and co-operation between Legislature and the Executive
during the first three years after the commencement of the Act, but it soon cracked down after
1924 being unsatisfactory and unworkable

Pt. Motilal Nehru in his Presidential address at Amritsar Congress held in 1919 remarked that
the most serious omission in the Act was that it failed to provide for any transference of
administrative or political power to the representatives of the people in the Central
Government

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Montague Chelmsford Reforms introduced
revolutionary changes in the sense that it promised responsible government which was
categorically denied to Indian People by the Morley-Minto Scheme of 1909.

Page 26 of 27
Bibliographical Notes

Primary Sources

• Cowell. H: History & Constitution of Courts & Legislative Authorities in

India

• Keith, A.B: Constitutional History of India

• Jain M.P: Outline of Indian Legal History, (1966)

• Fawcett, C: The first Century of British Justice in India

Page 27 of 27