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 MontaguāChelmsford 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
Guest previewThis is a classic 'Sitter' from the first chapter of Laxmikanth (Historical Background). The question targets the 'headline feature' of the Actāthe 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 ā 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-Ć -vis legislature under the Indian constitutional tradition, noting stronger legislative powers and the presence of judicial review ā 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-Ć -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 ā 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 CentreāProvince powers ā 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) ā 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.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.