Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q38 (IAS/2018) Polity & Governance › Constitutional Basics & Evolution › Government of India Acts Official Key

In the Federation established by The Government of India Act of 1935, residuary powers were given to the

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: B
Explanation

Section 104 of the Government of India Act, 1935, vested the residuary powers in the Governor-General to be exercised in his discretion.[2] The Act divided powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists - Federal List (with 59 items), Provincial List (with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (with 36 items), and residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General).[3] This arrangement differed from the current Indian Constitution, which vests residuary powers in the Union legislature under Article 248.[4] Under the Government of India Act, neither the Federal Legislature nor the Provincial Legislature had any powers of altering or amending the constitution.[5] This centralization of residuary powers in the Governor-General's hands reflected the colonial nature of the Act, where ultimate legislative authority on unenumerated matters remained with the British-appointed executive rather than being democratically distributed.

Sources
  1. [1] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_08.pdf
  2. [2] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_08.pdf
  3. [3] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
  4. [4] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
  5. [5] https://www.mea.gov.in/images/attach/amb/volume_01.pdf
How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
72%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest preview
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. In the Federation established by The Government of India Act of 1935, residuary powers were given to the [A] Federal Legislature [B] Go…
At a glance
Origin: Books + Current Affairs Fairness: Low / Borderline fairness Books / CA: 2.5/10 · 7.5/10
You're seeing a guest preview. The Verdict and first statement analysis are open. Login with Google to unlock all tabs.

This is a textbook 'Sitter' from the very first chapter of Laxmikanth ('Historical Background'). It tests the fundamental structural difference between the 1935 Act and the present Constitution regarding the locus of power. If you missed this, you are neglecting the static core.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India Act, 1935 vested in the Federal Legislature?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 5/5
"This is precisely what is done by section 104 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which vests the residuary powers in the Governor-General to be exercised in his discretion."
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states where residuary powers were placed under the Act.
  • Names section 104 as vesting residuary powers in the Governor‑General, which excludes vesting them in the Federal Legislature.
Web source
Presence: 3/5
"Under the Government of India Act neither the Federal Legislature, nor the Provincial Legislature have any powers of altering or amending the constitution."
Why this source?
  • Notes that under the Act the Federal Legislature did not have constituent (constitution‑altering) powers.
  • Supports the broader point that key sovereign-type powers were not vested in the Federal Legislature.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
Strength: 5/5
“In the USA and Australia). In this respect, the Constitution differs from the Government of India Act, 1935, for, under That Act, the residual powers were vested neither in the Federal nor in the State Legislature, but were placed in the hands of the Governor-General; the Constitution vests the residuary power, i.e., the power to legislate with respect to enumerated in any one of the three Lists-in the Union any matter not legislature [Article 248], and the final determination as to whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power or not is that of the courts.”
Why relevant

States explicitly that under the Government of India Act, 1935 residual powers were placed in the hands of the Governor-General rather than the Federal or State Legislature.

How to extend

A student could check the Act's text or historical summaries to confirm the Governor‑General's statutory role and contrast it with the idea of vesting such powers in a legislature.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > II Distribution of Legislative Subjects > p. 146
Strength: 5/5
“The Australian Constitution followed the American pattern of single enumeration of powers. In Canada, on the other hand, there is a double enumeration-Federal and Provincial, and the residuary powers are vested in the Centre. The Government of India Act of 1935 provided for a three-fold enumeration, viz., federal, provincial and concurrent. The present Constitution follows the scheme of this act but with one difference, that is, under this act, the residuary powers were given neither to the federal legislature nor to the provincial legislature but to the Governor-General of India. In this respect, India follows the Canadian precedent. The Constitution expressly secures the predominance of the Union List over the State List and the Concurrent List and that of the Concurrent List over the State List.”
Why relevant

Explains the Act's three‑fold list scheme and states residuary powers were given neither to the federal nor provincial legislature but to the Governor‑General, highlighting the deviation from other federations.

How to extend

Use this rule to compare other federations (e.g., Canada, USA) and infer that the 1935 Act was exceptional in assigning residuary authority to the executive.

Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 15: Centre State Relations > II Distribution of Legislative Subjects > p. 146
Strength: 4/5
“The Australian Constitution followed the American pattern of single enumeration of powers. In Canada, on the other hand, there is a double enumeration-Federal and Provincial, and the residuary powers are vested in the Centre. The Government of India Act of 1935 provided for a three-fold enumeration, viz., federal, provincial and concurrent. The present Constitution follows the scheme of this act but with one difference, that is, under this act, the residuary powers were given neither to the federal legislature nor to the provincial legislature but to the Governor-General of India. In this respect, India follows the Canadian precedent. The Constitution expressly secures the predominance of the Union List over the State List and the Concurrent List and that of the Concurrent List over the State List.”
Why relevant

Repeats that the 1935 Act provided three lists and that residuary powers were given to the Governor‑General, reinforcing the pattern across sources.

How to extend

A student could treat repeated secondary‑source statements as corroboration and seek the specific Act provisions or debates to verify the allocation.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
Strength: 4/5
“And princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists-Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General). However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it. • It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced 'provincial autonomy' in its place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their defined spheres. Moreover, the Act introduced responsible Governments in provinces, that is, the Governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature.”
Why relevant

States in concise form that residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor‑General) under the Act, directly addressing who held residual authority.

How to extend

Combine this with knowledge of the Viceroy/Governor‑General's powers to judge whether legislative vesting was possible under the Act's structure.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
Strength: 3/5
“Federation as envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1935. and combining the m into a federation by one and the same Act". All powers hitherto exercised in India were resumed by the Crown and redistributed between the Federation and the Provinces by a direct grant. Under this system, the Provinces derived their authority directly from the Crown. and exercised legislative and executive powers, broadly free from Central control, within a defined sphere. Nevertheless, the Centre retained control through 'the Governor's special responsibilities' and his obligation to exercise his individual judgment and discretion in certain matters. The power of the Centre to give direction to the Provinces.”
Why relevant

Describes the redistribution of powers under the 1935 Act and notes that the Centre retained control through 'the Governor's special responsibilities' and discretionary powers.

How to extend

Use this pattern (executive discretion at Centre) to infer how residuary matters might practically have been handled if not vested in a legislature.

Statement 2
Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India Act, 1935 vested in the Governor‑General?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
Presence: 5/5
“In the USA and Australia). In this respect, the Constitution differs from the Government of India Act, 1935, for, under That Act, the residual powers were vested neither in the Federal nor in the State Legislature, but were placed in the hands of the Governor-General; the Constitution vests the residuary power, i.e., the power to legislate with respect to enumerated in any one of the three Lists-in the Union any matter not legislature [Article 248], and the final determination as to whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power or not is that of the courts.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states that under the Government of India Act, 1935 residual powers were placed in the hands of the Governor‑General.
  • Direct comparison noting the Constitution later changed this arrangement, implying the Act vested residuary power in the Governor‑General.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
Presence: 5/5
“And princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists-Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General). However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it. • It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced 'provincial autonomy' in its place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their defined spheres. Moreover, the Act introduced responsible Governments in provinces, that is, the Governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature.”
Why this source?
  • Affirms that residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor‑General) under the Act.
  • Presents this allocation as a specific feature of the 1935 Act's distribution of powers.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 3
Presence: 4/5
“The Governor·General of India was given exclusive legislative powers for the entirety of British India. The laws made under the previous acts were called as Regulations, while laws made under this act were called as Acts. • 3. It ended the activities of the East India Company as a commercial body, which became a purely administrative body. 1. It separated, for the first time, the legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General's council. It provided for the addition of six new members called legislative councillors to the council. In other words, it established a separate Governor-General's legislative council which came to be known as the Indian (Central) Legislative Council.”
Why this source?
  • States the Governor‑General was given exclusive legislative powers for British India, supporting the view of strong central/vice‑regal legislative authority under the Act.
  • Corroborates centralization of legislative authority that aligns with vesting residuary power in the Governor‑General.
Statement analysis

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. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.

Statement 3
Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India Act, 1935 vested in the Provincial Legislatures?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 5/5
"which vests the residuary powers in the Governor-General to be exercised in his discretion."
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states where the Act vested residuary powers (not in provinces).
  • Names the specific provision (section 104) and the official (Governor-General) who held those powers.
Web source
Presence: 4/5
"we submit that the residuary powers should rest with the province."
Why this source?
  • Records that Jinnah moved an amendment arguing residuary powers should 'rest with the province', implying the Act did not already vest them in provinces.
  • Shows the issue was contested and that provincial vesting was a proposal rather than the enacted position.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
Strength: 5/5
“In the USA and Australia). In this respect, the Constitution differs from the Government of India Act, 1935, for, under That Act, the residual powers were vested neither in the Federal nor in the State Legislature, but were placed in the hands of the Governor-General; the Constitution vests the residuary power, i.e., the power to legislate with respect to enumerated in any one of the three Lists-in the Union any matter not legislature [Article 248], and the final determination as to whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power or not is that of the courts.”
Why relevant

Says under the 1935 Act residual powers were placed in the hands of the Governor-General (not federal or state legislatures).

How to extend

A student could combine this rule with the constitutional idea that residuary powers vested in an office mean they were not with provincial legislatures, so test the statement by checking who held those offices under the Act.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
Strength: 5/5
“And princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists-Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General). However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it. • It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced 'provincial autonomy' in its place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their defined spheres. Moreover, the Act introduced responsible Governments in provinces, that is, the Governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature.”
Why relevant

Explicitly notes residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General) under the Act, contrasting with provincial allocation of other lists.

How to extend

Compare the listed allocation of Federal, Provincial and Concurrent subjects to see that residuary powers are treated separately — implying they were not provincial.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
Strength: 4/5
“Federation as envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1935. and combining the m into a federation by one and the same Act". All powers hitherto exercised in India were resumed by the Crown and redistributed between the Federation and the Provinces by a direct grant. Under this system, the Provinces derived their authority directly from the Crown. and exercised legislative and executive powers, broadly free from Central control, within a defined sphere. Nevertheless, the Centre retained control through 'the Governor's special responsibilities' and his obligation to exercise his individual judgment and discretion in certain matters. The power of the Centre to give direction to the Provinces.”
Why relevant

Describes provinces deriving authority from the Crown while the Centre retained control through the Governor's special responsibilities and discretion.

How to extend

Use the pattern that governors held central control functions to infer residuary authority could be exercised by the Governor-General rather than provincial legislatures.

Geography of India ,Majid Husain, (McGrawHill 9th ed.) > Chapter 16: India–Political Aspects > Indian Federalism > p. 5
Strength: 4/5
“The recommendations of the Joint Committee became the Government of India Act of 1935. Under the Act, the centre had powers to pass laws on ninety seven subjects set forth in the Central List, and the provincial governments were permitted to pass laws on sixty six subjects, while forty seven subjects were in the Concurrent List. The act set forth the major outline of the federal system of government as finally evolved by the Constituent Assembly which framed the present Constitution of the Republic of India in 1950. The framers of the Indian Constitution realised that a real political danger to sub-nationalism (regionalism) might develop in India because of the variety of linguistic, religious, cultural, economic, and ideological differences that existed in the country.”
Why relevant

Sets out the three-list legislative division (Central, Provincial, Concurrent) under the Act, implying a structured allocation of subjects and a separate treatment for residual matters.

How to extend

A student could reason that since provincial powers are confined to the Provincial List, any unenumerated (residuary) subject would lie outside that list and thus need a different repository under the Act.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > CHAP. 1] > p. 11
Strength: 4/5
“So long as India remained a Dependency of the British Crown, the Government of lndia was carried on in the name of His Majesty. Under the Act of 1935, the Crown came into further prominence owing to the scheme of the Act being federal, and all the units of the federation including the Provinces drew their authority directly from the Crown (c) The Governor-General and Provincial Governors to act as Constitutional Heads. The Governors-General of the (\\'0 Dominions became the Constitutional 'Heads of the two new Dominions as in the case of the other Dominions. This was, in fact, a necessary corollary from 'Dominion Status' which had been d enied to India by the Government of India Act, 1935, but conceded by the Indian Independence Act, 1947.”
Why relevant

Notes provinces and other units drew authority from the Crown and underscores the role of Governors as constitutional heads under the Act.

How to extend

Combine this pattern with knowledge that the Governor-General represented the Crown centrally to hypothesize that residuary powers were centrally (Crown/Governor-General) placed, not with provincial legislatures.

Statement analysis

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. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.

Statement 4
Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India Act, 1935 vested in the Provincial Governors?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 5/5
"This is precisely what is done by section 104 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which vests the residuary powers in the Governor-General to be exercised in his discretion."
Why this source?
  • Directly states where the Act placed residuary powers (names the specific section).
  • Identifies the office (Governor-General) that received residuary powers to be exercised in discretion — contradicts vesting in Provincial Governors.
Web source
Presence: 4/5
"His third amendment was in regard to residuary powers which the Nehru Committee had vested in the Central Government. In moving his amendment that they should be lodged in the Provincial Government Mr. Jinnah pleaded: ... 'we submit that the residuary powers should rest with the province.'"
Why this source?
  • Describes contemporary debate: Nehru Committee had vested residuary powers in the Central Government (not provinces).
  • Records Jinnah's amendment arguing residuary powers should 'rest with the province,' showing provinces did not hold them under the Act.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
Strength: 5/5
“And princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists-Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor-General). However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it. • It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced 'provincial autonomy' in its place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their defined spheres. Moreover, the Act introduced responsible Governments in provinces, that is, the Governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature.”
Why relevant

Explicitly states that residuary powers were given to the Viceroy (Governor‑General) under the Act.

How to extend

A student could infer that residuary powers being assigned to the Viceroy makes it less likely they were also vested in Provincial Governors and should check the Act's text or distribution scheme to confirm exclusivity.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
Strength: 4/5
“Federation as envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1935. and combining the m into a federation by one and the same Act". All powers hitherto exercised in India were resumed by the Crown and redistributed between the Federation and the Provinces by a direct grant. Under this system, the Provinces derived their authority directly from the Crown. and exercised legislative and executive powers, broadly free from Central control, within a defined sphere. Nevertheless, the Centre retained control through 'the Governor's special responsibilities' and his obligation to exercise his individual judgment and discretion in certain matters. The power of the Centre to give direction to the Provinces.”
Why relevant

Explains the Centre's retained control through the Governor's special responsibilities and his individual judgment and discretion in certain matters.

How to extend

One could contrast 'special responsibilities' and discretionary powers of provincial Governors with 'residuary' assignment to see if these are distinct categories in the Act.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > CHAP. 1] > p. 8
Strength: 4/5
“But though the Part relating to the Federation never took effect, the Part relating to Provincial Autonomy was given effect to since April, 1937. The Act divided legislative powers between the Provincial and Central Legislatures, and within its defined sphere, the Provinces were no longer delegates of the Central Government, but were autonomous units of administration The executive authority of a Province was also exercised by a Governor on behalf of the Crown and not as a subordinate of the Governor-General. The Governor was required to act with the advice of Ministers responsible to the Legislature. But notwithstanding the introduction of Provincial Autonomy, the Act of 1935 retained control of the Central Government over the Provinces in a certain sphere—by requiring the Governor to act 'in his discretion' or in the exercise of his 'individual judgment' in certain matters.”
Why relevant

Says provincial Governors exercised executive authority on behalf of the Crown and were required to act on ministers' advice but had to act in their discretion in certain matters, showing Governors had defined discretionary roles.

How to extend

Use this to distinguish routine/discretionary provincial powers from residuary (leftover) powers possibly assigned elsewhere (e.g., Viceroy).

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > CHAP. 1] > p. 11
Strength: 3/5
“So long as India remained a Dependency of the British Crown, the Government of lndia was carried on in the name of His Majesty. Under the Act of 1935, the Crown came into further prominence owing to the scheme of the Act being federal, and all the units of the federation including the Provinces drew their authority directly from the Crown (c) The Governor-General and Provincial Governors to act as Constitutional Heads. The Governors-General of the (\\'0 Dominions became the Constitutional 'Heads of the two new Dominions as in the case of the other Dominions. This was, in fact, a necessary corollary from 'Dominion Status' which had been d enied to India by the Government of India Act, 1935, but conceded by the Indian Independence Act, 1947.”
Why relevant

Notes that under the Act all units, including Provinces, drew authority from the Crown and that Governor‑Generals and Provincial Governors were constitutional heads.

How to extend

A student could use the Crown‑derived authority point to trace where unallocated (residuary) powers were formally placed in the Crown‑centred scheme—likely at central level (Governor‑General) rather than provincial.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > CHAP. 1] > p. 9
Strength: 3/5
“The Instruments of Instructions issued under the Act further require that the Bills relating to a number of subjects such as those de-lating the powers of a high court or affecting the Permanent Settlement, when presented to the Governor-General or a Governor for his assent, were to be reserved for the consideration of the Crown or the Governor-General, as the case might be. (d) Distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the Provinces. Though the Indian States did not join the Federation, the federal provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935 were in fact applied as between the Central Government and the Provinces.”
Why relevant

Mentions Instruments of Instructions and reservation of certain bills to the Governor‑General or Crown, indicating a pattern of central reservation of special powers.

How to extend

This pattern of reservation to the Governor‑General/Crown supports checking whether residuary powers were likewise reserved centrally rather than to provincial Governors.

Statement analysis

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. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.

Pattern takeaway: UPSC consistently mines the 'Government of India Act, 1935' because it forms 70% of our current Constitution. The pattern is to ask about 'Structural Features' (Federal Court, Dyarchy, Residuary Powers) rather than minor administrative rules.
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Laxmikanth Chapter 1 or D.D. Basu Chapter 1. No ambiguity.
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Evolution of Federalism in India. Specifically, the timeline of how 'Residuary Powers' shifted from the Governor-General (1935) to the Parliament (1950).
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 1935 List counts (Federal: 59, Provincial: 54, Concurrent: 36). Contrast Residuary Powers: USA/Australia (States) vs. Canada (Centre) vs. India 1935 (Viceroy/GG). Also, recall that Dyarchy was abolished in Provinces but proposed for the Centre in 1935.
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading Constitutional History, do not just read the text; draw a 'Power Matrix'. Ask: Who held the veto? Who held the purse? Who held the undefined (residuary) power? The British always kept the 'undefined' powers with the Executive (GG), not the Legislature.
How to study

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. Available with ExamRobot Pro.

Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Residuary powers under the Government of India Act, 1935
💡 The insight

The question asks who held residuary powers under the 1935 Act; several references describe how the Act handled residual legislative authority.

High-yield for UPSC constitutional history: knowing where residuary powers were placed under the 1935 Act is essential for comparing it with the present Constitution and other federations. This concept connects to topics on distribution of legislative subjects and the evolution from colonial statutes to the Constitution, and often appears in comparative and historical questions.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > II Distribution of Legislative Subjects > p. 146
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Governor‑General / Viceroy as holder of residuary authority
💡 The insight

Multiple references explicitly state that residuary powers were given to the Governor‑General (Viceroy) rather than to federal or provincial legislatures.

Knowing the specific office that held residual powers is crucial for answering direct factual questions and for understanding colonial administrative control mechanisms. It links to study of executive powers, federal autonomy, and the rationale for constitutional changes in independent India.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > II Distribution of Legislative Subjects > p. 146
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Three-fold enumeration of legislative lists (Federal, Provincial, Concurrent)
💡 The insight

The 1935 Act's division into three lists is the structural backdrop to any question about residuary powers—who gets remaining subjects depends on this enumeration.

Mastering the three-list structure helps aspirants answer questions on distribution of powers, comparisons with single/double enumeration models (US/Canada), and why residuary allocation mattered; it is frequently tested in polity and governance sections.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > II Distribution of Legislative Subjects > p. 146
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Residuary powers under the Government of India Act, 1935
💡 The insight

Directly addresses where unenumerated legislative authority was placed under the Act (vested in the Governor‑General/Viceroy).

High-yield for constitutional history questions: explains a key difference between the 1935 Act and post‑Independence Constitution and appears in comparative questions about allocation of powers. Mastery helps answer questions on federal residuary arrangements and historical shifts in authority.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Governor‑General's individual legislative/discretionary powers
💡 The insight

Connects the residuary question to the Governor‑General's broader legislative role (assent, ordinance, individual judgment) under the Act.

Important for questions on executive-legislative relations under colonial statutes and for tracing continuity/discontinuity with the Constitution (e.g., ordinance power, assent). Helps tackle source-based and comparison questions about executive discretion.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > It) Tlte Ordinance-making PQwer. > p. 219
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 3
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Division of subjects (Federal, Provincial, Concurrent) and residuary allocation
💡 The insight

The Act's three-list division sets the context; residuary powers concern subjects not in any list and where they were allocated.

Crucial for understanding federal structure questions: shows how list-based distribution creates the problem of residuary powers and why their allocation (to GG under 1935 Act versus Parliament under Constitution) matters. Useful for comparative and analytical questions on federal design.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S3
👉 Residuary powers under the Government of India Act, 1935
💡 The insight

Directly addresses which authority held the residuary (left-over) legislative power under the 1935 Act — central to the statement's claim about provincial legislatures.

High-yield for UPSC because questions often ask who held residuary powers under pre-1950 statutes and how that differed from the Constitution. Helps compare the 1935 Act's allocation with later constitutional provisions; useful for centre–state relations and constitutional history answers. Master by memorising the authority allocation and practising short comparisons.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 24: DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS > Residuary Powers. > p. 378
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 8
🔗 Anchor: "Were residuary powers in the Federation established by the Government of India A..."
Micro-concepts

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. Unlock micro-concepts with ExamRobot Pro.

🌑 The Hidden Trap

The 'Instrument of Instructions' issued to the Governor-General and Governors under the 1935 Act is the direct ancestor of the 'Directive Principles of State Policy' (DPSP) in the 1950 Constitution. This is a prime candidate for a future 'source of constitution' question.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

Apply the 'Colonial Trust Deficit' logic. The British Empire would never trust a 'Legislature' (filled with Indians/nationalists) with undefined, residuary powers. They would only trust their own agent. Who is the supreme agent? The Governor-General. Options A and C are eliminated immediately. Option D is too local. B is the only safe imperial choice.

🔗 Mains Connection

Mains GS-2 (Federalism): Use this fact to argue that Indian Federalism has a 'Centralizing Bias' by design. The shift of residuary powers from the Colonial Executive (GG) to the Sovereign Parliament (Centre) in 1950 preserved the strong-centre unitary bias, unlike the American model where residuary powers lie with States.

The Vault

Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.

Login with Google to unlock The Vault. Unlock the Mentor's Vault with ExamRobot Pro.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

CDS-II · 2010 · Q81 Relevance score: 7.17

To which among the following the residuary powers were conferred by the federation established by the Act of 1935 ?

CAPF · 2014 · Q45 Relevance score: 4.89

Which of the following statements regarding the residuary powers under the Constitution of India is/are correct ? 1. Residuary powers have been given to the Union Parliament 2. In the matter of residuary power, the Constitution of India follows the Constitution of Australia 3. Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India provides a list of residuary powers 4. The Government of India Act 1935 placed residuary powers in the hands of the Governor General Select the correct answer using the code given below :

IAS · 2024 · Q62 Relevance score: 4.53

With reference to the Government of India Act, 1935, consider the following statements : 1. It provided for the establishment of an All India Federation based on the union of the British Indian Provinces and Princely States. 2. Defence and Foreign Affairs were kept under the control of the federal legislature. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

IAS · 2005 · Q87 Relevance score: 4.27

Consider the following statements: The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for 1. The provincial autonomy. 2. The establishment of Federal Court. 3. All India Federation at the centre. Which of the statements is/are correct?

CDS-I · 2005 · Q30 Relevance score: 3.88

Consider the following statements: The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for the 1. Establishment of an All-India Federation to be based on the Union of British Indian Provinces and Princely States. 2. Franchise for all the people above 21 years of age. 3. Power to Governors to veto legislative and administrative measures in their provinces. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?