Question map
The Government of India Act of 1919 clearly defined
Explanation
None of the options correctly describes what the Government of India Act of 1919 clearly defined. The Act introduced 'Dyarchy' in the provinces, where subjects like health, education and local self-government were 'transferred' to elected Indian representatives, while ministers holding 'transferred subjects' were responsible to the legislatures but those in charge of 'reserved' subjects were not[1]. However, this scheme created a situation where the Legislature could paralyse the Executive without having power to remove it, and was unsound because the[2] Executive and the legislature derived their mandates separately[2]. The strong ties of subordination bound the Provinces to the Central Government, and Provincial Governments remained as departments [3]of the Government of India rather than becoming separate entities[4]. The Act did not clearly define the separation of judicial and legislative powers, nor did it provide clear demarcation of central-provincial jurisdiction or Secretary of State-Viceroy powers in an unambiguous manner. The vague and overlapping nature of these provisions was a key weakness of the 1919 Act.
Sources- [1] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 MontaguâChelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- [2] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume6.pdf
- [3] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume6.pdf
- [4] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume6.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Sitter' from the first chapter of Laxmikanth (Historical Background). The question targets the 'headline feature' of the Actâthe relaxation of central control via the demarcation of subjects. If you know Dyarchy, you must know it required defining jurisdictions.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Government of India Act, 1919 clearly define the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature?
- Statement 2: Did the Government of India Act, 1919 clearly define the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments?
- Statement 3: Did the Government of India Act, 1919 clearly define the powers of the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy?
This snippet asserts (as a test/question item) that the India Act of 1919 'clearly defined' separation of power between judiciary and legislature â it shows that some sources present this as a view or claim about the Act.
A student could treat this as a lead to check the Act's text/articles for explicit clauses on judicial independence or legislative limits to see if the claim is textually supported.
Compares judicial powers vis-Ă -vis legislature under the Indian constitutional tradition, noting stronger legislative powers and the presence of judicial review â a pattern about relative institutional powers.
Use this rule to ask whether the 1919 Act created mechanisms (e.g., judicial review, tenure, removals) that would imply a clear separation or instead left judiciary weaker vis-Ă -vis legislature.
States that under the 1919 Act the legislature was non-sovereign and 'powerless before the executive', indicating the Act's power distribution favored executive over legislature â relevant to whether clear legislative-judicial separation was a priority.
A student could infer that if the Act prioritized executive dominance, it may not have strongly delineated legislative-judicial boundaries and should check specific provisions affecting courts.
Explains that provincial powers under the 1919 Act were by delegation from the Centre, showing the Act used explicit legal allocation rules for CentreâProvince powers â an example of how the Act handled institutional divisions.
By analogy, a student could search the Act for similarly explicit rules (or absence thereof) concerning separation between legislature and judiciary.
Describes structural reforms introduced by the 1919 Act (e.g., bicameral legislature) â this demonstrates the Act did specify institutional arrangements and so may or may not have specified inter-branch relations.
A student could extend this by examining whether the Act's institutional descriptions include clauses on judicial independence or limits on legislative interference.
- Directly states that Provincial Governments, even after Provincial Finance, remained 'departments of the Government of India', implying no clear separation of jurisdiction.
- Frames the financial relationship as unchanged, undermining a clear delineation of separate provincial authority.
- Describes a common treasury and combined 'ways and means' for Central and Provincial Governments, indicating intermingled financial control rather than clear separate jurisdictions.
- States the Government of India examined Provincial budget estimates, showing central oversight of provincial finances.
- Affirms that by law the Government of India was responsible for 'peace, order and good government', making services Imperial and under central responsibility.
- Supports the view that the relationship was not one of clear provincial autonomy or distinct jurisdiction.
States that subjects of administration were to be divided into 'Central and Provincial' and that this division was to be made 'by Rules made under the Act'.
A student could check the Act or secondary sources to see whether delegation to 'Rules' implies precise, exhaustive lists or left scope for later specification.
Notes the Act created 'two lists for administration â central and provincial' and that the governor-general retained control over 'reserved subjects', implying a categorical division of subjects.
One could compare this two-list structure with later Acts (e.g., 1935) or maps of legislative lists to judge how detailed/clear the 1919 lists were.
Mentions that the 1919 Act divided provincial functions into 'Reserved' and 'Transferred' subjects and gives examples (Administration of Justice, Police, Land Revenue), showing an internal provincial categorisation.
A student might look up which subjects were explicitly listed as 'reserved' or 'transferred' to assess the clarity of jurisdictional boundaries.
Says the Act provided for dual government (central and provincial) and a set of 'Devolution Rules' and enabled provinces to prepare budget and levy taxesâindicating functional allocation between levels.
Use the mention of 'Devolution Rules' to investigate whether the Act itself contained fixed lists or left detailed jurisdiction to subordinate rules.
Gives a concrete example: local self-government was made a 'transferred' subject under the 1919 Act, illustrating that specific matters were assigned to provincial control.
A student could collect similar examples to see whether the Act consistently assigned subjects or left many undefined.
- States creation of the office 'Secretary of State for India' and that it was 'vested with complete authority and control over Indian administration'.
- Notes the Secretary was a member of the British Cabinet and ultimately responsible to Parliament (defines central authority and accountability).
- Explains concentration of main authority in the Secretary of State, indicating the Act (or related reforms) placed decisive powers with the Secretary.
- Says this concentration reduced the Viceroy to a subordinate status, implying a redefinition or limitation of the Viceroy's powers.
- Identifies Chelmsford as Viceroy under the MontaguâChelmsford (1919) reforms and describes dyarchy, showing how powers were allocated between reserved and transferred subjects.
- Notes that governors (and by extension viceroyal authority) could overrule ministers via special veto powers, indicating specific limits/roles were set.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly solvable from Laxmikanth Chapter 1 or Spectrum's Constitutional Developments chapter.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Historical Underpinnings of the Constitution. Specifically, the transition from Unitary to 'Quasi-Federal' devolution.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Structural Shifts' of 1919: 1) Dyarchy in Provinces (Reserved vs Transferred), 2) Bicameralism at Centre (Council of State + Legislative Assembly), 3) Direct Elections (limited franchise), 4) Separation of Central and Provincial Budgets, 5) Establishment of Public Service Commission (1926).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not just read the text; tabulate the Acts (1909, 1919, 1935). For each, ask: 'What was the specific change in Centre-State relations?' and 'What new institution was born?' The 1919 Act is synonymous with the 'First step towards Devolution'.
The Act of 1919 is the primary historical instrument under discussion and is described as introducing gradual constitutional change and a new legislative structure.
High-yield for UPSC history/Polity: understanding this Act explains the incremental nature of constitutional reform in British India and frames later developments (e.g., 1935 Act, 1950 Constitution). Master by comparing the Act's provisions and intent with subsequent statutes; prepare timelines and causeâeffect notes to answer both static and analytical questions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 509
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 511
References note that provincial powers under the 1919 Act were delegated by the Centre rather than establishing a true federal division of legislative authority.
Crucial for questions on federalism and constitutional evolution: differentiates delegation (1919) from the more structured division under later constitutional arrangements. Useful for comparative answers (1919 vs 1935 vs 1950). Study by mapping subject-matter control and examples of reserved/declared powers.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > CHAP. 1] > p. 9
Evidence indicates the legislature created by the Act was non-sovereign and subordinate to the executive, which bears on whether separation of powers was clearly demarcated.
Important for interpreting limits of legislative independence under colonial statutes and for essays/answers on separation of powers evolution. Helps connect institutional design to practical power relations; revise by linking provisions to real exercise of power and later judicial responses.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 511
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 509
Multiple references state the Secretary of State office was created and vested with complete authority and was responsible to the British Parliament.
High-yield for UPSC: explains centre of constitutional authority in colonial governance and links to later constitutional transitions. Frequently tested in questions on colonial administrative structure and shifts in power between London and India. Prepare by comparing roles of Secretary of State across Acts and noting lines of accountability to Parliament.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 4
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Central Government > p. 525
References describe the Viceroy as Crown's representative and show how dyarchy and veto/special powers defined/limited executive roles.
Important for questions on dyarchy and the distribution of reserved vs transferred subjects; helps explain tensions in provincial autonomy and nationalist reactions. Study by mapping powers of Viceroy/Governor-General across Acts (1858, 1919) and examples of reserved-veto powers.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 MontaguâChelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 4
The Act is repeatedly linked to dyarchy, enlargement of legislatures, and reallocation of subjects between elected ministers and reserved authorities.
Core topic for modern Indian history and polity questions; explains the incremental nature of constitutional reform and roots of later demands for self-rule. Master by summarising key features, implications for provincial governance, and contemporary nationalist responses.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > Government of India Act of 1919 > p. 6
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 MontaguâChelmsford Reforms > p. 44
The 1919 Act created a new office: The High Commissioner for India in London. It transferred some functions (agency work) from the Secretary of State to this new High Commissioner. This is a prime candidate for a future statement trap swapping functions between the two.
Use 'Chronological Logic'. Option C (Sec of State/Viceroy powers) was the core agenda of the 1858 Act (post-Mutiny). Option A (Separation of Judiciary) is a modern constitutional ideal (Article 50). The 1919 Act is famously known as the 'Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms'âMontagu wanted 'gradual development of self-governing institutions'. Self-government starts with Provinces. Therefore, defining Provincial jurisdiction (Option B) is the only logical fit.
Link this to GS2 Federalism. The 1919 Act introduced 'Devolution Rules', which was a statutory delegation of power, unlike the 1950 Constitution which provides a 'Constitutional Division of Power'. Use this distinction in Mains answers on the evolution of Indian Federalism.