The Government of India Act 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 42), also referred to as the Constitution Act between 1935 and 1947, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, serving as the constitution and governing document of British India in its final years until its independence and partition into the dominions of India and Pakistan.
Among other innovations, the act established Burma and Aden as separate Crown colonies (both at the time part of British India), created the Reserve Bank of India and the Federal Court of India, created public service commissions both at the provincial and federal levels, and established the province of Sindh.
Intended to lead naturally to a self-governing Dominion of India, it granted some autonomy to the governments of the provinces of British India and established direct elections to provincial legislatures, expanding the electorate to roughly forteen percent of the then-population of India.
However, it was widely criticised for containing safeguards that continued to enable the British government and its viceregal representatives to exercise excessive control over the finances, defence and administration of the provinces; leading to low Indian support for the British war effort in the ensuing Second World War and eventually the widespread Quit India Movement in 1942. Plans for a permanent federal dominion were ultimately shelved on the outbreak of war in 1939.
A version of the act modified by the Indian Independence Act 1947 continued to govern the dominions of India and Pakistan after gaining independence from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom until both countries adopted their own constitutions in 1950 and 1956 respectively. The longest Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom until the Greater London Authority Act 1999—large sections of the act continue as part of the statutes and constitutions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Overview
The most significant aspects of the act were:
The grant of a large measure of autonomy to the provinces of India (ending the system of diarchy introduced by the Government of India Act 1919). Legislative Assemblies were introduced, some Legislative Councils (like those of Punjab and Central Provinces) were abolished while others (like in Bengal, Bombay and United Provinces) had their numbers reduced. In addition to reinforcing separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs and Europeans, new reservations were created in the Legislative Assemblies for Christians, Anglo-Indians, tribals, women, landholders, universities, Commerce & Labour representatives, in accordance to the Communal Award. An attempt to create a separate electorate for Dalits was put off due to the Poona Pact, under which certain seats of the Legislative Assemblies reserved for Hindus were designated as multi-member constituencies having both Dalit as well as savarna representatives, elected by a common Hindu electorate. Provision for the establishment of a "Federation of India", to be made up of both British India and some or all of the "princely states" The introduction of direct elections, thus increasing the franchise from five million to 35 million people. Threshold for property and land ownership was reduced in order to allow women and Dalits to exercise their voting rights. A partial reorganization of the provinces: Sindh Province was created by separating Sind Division from Bombay Bihar and Orissa was split into separate provinces of Bihar and Orissa Burma was completely separated from India, and was endowed with its own Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, which were elected in 1936. Aden was also detached from India, and established as a separate Crown colony Membership of the provincial assemblies was altered to include any number of elected Indian representatives, who were now able to form majorities and be appointed to form governments. The establishment of a Federal Court
However, the degree of autonomy introduced at the provincial level was subject to important limitations: the provincial governors retained important reserve powers, and the British authorities also retained a right to suspend responsible government.
The parts of the act intended to establish the Federation of India never came into operation, due to opposition from the rulers of the princely states. The remaining parts of the act came into force in 1937, when the first elections under the act were also held.
The features of this act were as follows; 1-it provided for the establishment of an all-Indian Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. The act divided the powers between centre and units in terms of three lists: federal list, the provincial list and the concurrent list.
Background Indians had increasingly been demanding a greater role in the government of their country since the late 19th century. The Indian contribution to the British war effort during the First World War meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political establishment felt the necessity of constitutional change, resulting in the Government of India Act 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 101). That act introduced a novel system of government known as provincial "diarchy", i.e., certain areas of government (such as education) were placed in the hands of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature, while others (such as public order and finance) were retained in the hands of officials responsible to the British-appointed provincial governor. While the act was a reflection of the demand for a greater role in government by Indians, it was also very much a reflection of British fears about what that role might mean in practice for India (and of course for British interests there).
The experiment with dyarchy proved unsatisfactory. A particular frustration for Indian politicians was that even for those areas over which they had gained nominal control, the "purse strings" were still in the hands of British officialdom.
The intention had been that a review of India's constitutional arrangements would be held ten years on from the 1919 act. In the event, the review was conducted ahead of time by the Simon Commission, whose report proposed the scrapping of diarchy, and the introduction of a much larger degree of responsible government in the provinces. This proposal was controversial in Britain, demonstrating the rapidly widening gulf between British and Indian opinions as to the desirability, extent, and speed of progress towards, the promised system of self-government contained in the 1919 act's preamble.
Although the Simon Commission had taken evidence in India, it had met with opposition there, and its conclusions weren't accepted by Congress (the largest political party). In an attempt to involve Indians more fully in working out a new constitutional framework, a series of Round Table Conferences were then held in the early 1930s, attended at times by representatives from India's main political parties, as well as from the princely states. The agreement was reached in principle that a federal system of government should be introduced, comprising the provinces of British India and those princely states that were willing to accede to it. However, the division between Congress and Muslim representatives proved to be a major factor in preventing agreement on much of the important detail of how federation would work in practice.
The new Conservative-dominated National Government in London decided to go ahead with drafting its own proposals (white paper, March 1933). A joint parliamentary select committee, chaired by Lord Linlithgow, reviewed the white paper proposals for a year and a half between April 1933 and November 1934, amidst much opposition from Winston Churchill and other backbench Conservatives. The House of Commons approved the Joint Select Committee report in December after an emollient speech by Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin, who stated that he respected the principled position of the bill's opponents and that he did not wish feelings in his own party to become permanently embittered.
Based on the white paper, the Government of India Bill was framed. It was immensely long, containing 473 clauses and 16 schedules, and the reports of the debates took up 4,000 pages of Hansard. At the committee stage and later, to appease the diehards, the "safeguards" were strengthened, and indirect elections were reinstated for the Central Legislative Assembly (the central legislature's lower house). The opposition Labour Party opposed the Third Reading of the bill because it contained no specific promise of dominion status for India. It received Royal Assent and was passed into law on 2 August 1935.
As a result of this process, although the Government of India Act 1935 was intended to go some way towards meeting Indian demands, both the detail of the bill and the lack of Indian involvement in drafting its contents meant that the act met with a lukewarm response at best in India, while still proving too radical for a significant element in Britain.
Features
No preamble: the ambiguity of British commitment to dominion status
While it had become uncommon for British acts of Parliament to contain a preamble, the absence of one from the Government of India Act 1935 contrasts sharply with the 1919 act, which set out the broad philosophy of that act's aims to Indian political development. That act's preamble quoted, and centred on, the statement of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, to the House of Commons on 20 August 1917, which pledged "the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire".
Indian demands were by now centring on British India achieving constitutional parity with the existing Dominions (Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa) which would have meant complete autonomy within the British Empire. A significant element in British political circles doubted that Indians were capable of running their country on this basis, and saw Dominion status as something that might, perhaps, be aimed for after a long period of gradual constitutional development, with sufficient "safeguards".
This tension between and within Indian and British views resulted in the clumsy compromise of the 1935 act having no preamble of its own but keeping in place the 1919 act's preamble even while repealing the remainder of that act. Unsurprisingly, this was seen in India as yet more mixed messages from the British, suggesting at best a lukewarm attitude and at worst suggesting a "minimum necessary" approach towards satisfying Indian desires.
No 'bill of rights'
In common with Commonwealth constitutional legislation of the time, the act did not include a "bill of rights" within the new system that it aimed to establish. However, in the case of the proposed federation of India, there was a further complication in incorporating such a set of rights, as the new entity would have included nominally sovereign (and generally autocratic) princely states.
A different approach was considered by some, though, as the draft outline constitution in the Nehru Report included such a bill of rights.
Excess "safeguards"
At the partition of India in 1947, with relatively few amendments, the act became the functioning interim constitutions of India and Pakistan.