Question map
In the Government of India Act 1919, the functions of Provincial Government were divided into "Reserved" and "Transferred" subjects. Which of the following were treated as "Reserved" subjects? 1. Administration of Justice 2. Local Self-Government 3. Land Revenue 4. Police Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 3 (1, 3 and 4). The Government of India Act 1919 introduced Dyarchy in the provinces, dividing provincial subjects into two categories: Reserved and Transferred.
Reserved subjects were those deemed vital for imperial control and law and order. These were administered by the Governor with his Executive Council, without being responsible to the Legislative Council. They included:
- Administration of Justice
- Land Revenue
- Police
- Finance, Irrigation, and Prisons.
In contrast, Transferred subjects were those of local interest and nation-building, administered by the Governor with the advice of Ministers responsible to the Legislature. Local Self-Government (Point 2) was a classic Transferred subject, along with Education, Public Health, and Agriculture. Since Point 2 is a Transferred subject, Options 1, 2, and 4 are incorrect, making Option 3 the accurate choice.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Sitter' from the Historical Background chapter of Laxmikanth or Spectrum. It tests the core logic of Colonial Rule: keep the power (Revenue/Police) and delegate the blame (Health/Local Govt). If you missed this, your static foundation needs immediate repair.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Was Administration of Justice classified as a "Reserved" subject under the Government of India Act, 1919?
- Statement 2: Was Local Self-Government classified as a "Reserved" subject under the Government of India Act, 1919?
- Statement 3: Was Land Revenue classified as a "Reserved" subject under the Government of India Act, 1919?
- Statement 4: Was Police classified as a "Reserved" subject under the Government of India Act, 1919?
- Explicitly lists 'administration of justice' among the reserved subjects under the Act.
- Also explains the division of provincial subjects into 'transferred' and 'reserved', placing administration of justice in the reserved category.
- Repeats the classification that reserved subjects included 'administration of justice', reinforcing the claim.
- Connects the reserved/transferred division directly to the Devolution Rules under the Act.
Explicitly states that Local self-government was made a 'transferred' subject under the Government of India Act, 1919.
A student could treat this as a direct counter-indicator and verify against the Act's schedule or other textbook lists of 'reserved' subjects to test the claim.
Explains the dyarchy division under the 1919 Act and lists 'local self-government' among the subjects described as 'transferred' to elected Indian representatives.
Use this rule (local self-government categorized as 'transferred' in dyarchy) plus a standard list/map of reserved subjects to infer whether local self-government appears among reserved items.
Describes the general rule that the 1919 Devolution Rules separated subjects into 'reserved' (administered by Governor without legislative responsibility) and 'transferred' (sphere of responsive government).
A student could apply this definition to ask which category local self-government fits by checking who administered it under the Act and thereby judge whether it was reserved.
Contains a practice question listing possible 'reserved' subjects under the 1919 Act and includes 'Local Self-Government' as an item in the options to be identified.
A student can use this example question to compare standard answer keys or authoritative lists of reserved subjects (e.g., Police, Land Revenue, Administration of Justice) to see whether local self-government is grouped with them.
Notes that following the Government of India Act 1919 village panchayats/local bodies were established and that this trend continued, implying local bodies were within the transferred/devolved sphere of provincial reforms.
Combine this historical example (active establishment of local bodies post-1919) with the dyarchy rule to infer that local self-government was likely not kept under central/reserved control.
- Explicitly lists examples of subjects under the 1919 Act and includes 'land-revenue' among them.
- The passage groups land-revenue with other matters (police, justice, irrigation) that were treated as reserved subjects.
- Explains the basic division of provincial functions under the 1919 Act into transferred and those retained (i.e., reserved).
- Provides context that some functions remained under central/provincial control while others were transferred, supporting the reserved/transferred framework.
The itemised question lists 'Land Revenue' among four items and asks which were treated as reserved subjects under the 1919 Act — indicating Land Revenue was considered in that classification schema.
A student could locate the official list of 'Reserved' vs 'Transferred' provincial subjects in the 1919 Act and check whether Land Revenue appears among the reserved items.
Explains the concept of 'reserved' subjects under the 1919 Act: reserved subjects were administered by the Governor and his Executive Council without responsibility to the legislature.
Use this rule to infer that if Land Revenue was administered directly by the Governor under the Act, it would be a reserved subject; verify by checking administrative control for Land Revenue in the Act.
Establishes the context and existence of the Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms), which introduced the reserved/transferred division.
Knowing the Act and its reforms lets a student search that Act's schedules/Devolution Rules for the specific categorisation of Land Revenue.
Describes practical administration of Land Revenue (levied by State/Provincial laws), linking the topic to provincial/administrative competence rather than solely central matters.
A student could combine this with the Act's provincial/central split to check whether provincial subjects like Land Revenue were treated as 'reserved' or 'transferred' in practice under 1919 rules.
States 'land being State subject' in the post-independence context, showing a pattern that land-related matters are typically provincial/state-level concerns.
Use this general pattern to hypothesise Land Revenue was likely placed under provincial administration in historical statutes, then verify the exact 1919 classification in the Act's lists.
- Explicitly links the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms/Government of India Act (1919) to a list of provincial subjects
- Names 'police' among the subjects governed under that scheme, indicating it was part of the Act's subject division
- States that under the Government of India Act of 1919 responsibilities in the provinces were divided between those transferred and those retained
- Provides the structural context (transferred vs. control retained) used to classify subjects such as police
This snippet contains an explicit MCQ asking which provincial functions were treated as 'reserved' under the 1919 Act and lists Police as item 4—showing that police was considered among candidate reserved/transferred items in study questions about the Act.
A student could look up the correct answer to this question in standard sources or exam keys to see whether Police is listed among the reserved subjects.
Gives the rule: 'transferred' subjects were the narrow sphere of responsible government while 'reserved' subjects were administered by the Governor and his Executive Council without responsibility to the legislature.
Using this rule, a student could test whether police functions were administered directly by the Governor/executive (i.e., non-responsible) under 1919 practice to infer reserved status.
States the British did not create an All-India Police and that the Police Act, 1861 provided guidelines for a police setup 'in the provinces', implying police was a provincial matter.
Knowing police was a provincial subject, a student could combine this with the 'reserved vs transferred' split of provincial subjects under the 1919 Act to check whether police specifically fell into the reserved category.
Explains the 1919 Act was a limited, gradual devolution of responsibility and that central/executive power remained strong—context for why some provincial subjects remained under executive (reserved) control.
A student could use this context to expect key law-and-order functions (like police) might have been kept under executive control and then verify from primary lists or schedules of the Act.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly solvable from Laxmikanth (Chapter 1) or Spectrum (Chapter 26).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Dyarchy' provision under the Government of India Act, 1919.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the logic of the split. Reserved (British Control): Law & Order, Finance, Land Revenue, Irrigation, Justice. Transferred (Indian Ministers): Education, Health, Local Self-Govt, Agriculture, Industry, Excise.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not rote memorize the list blindly. Apply the 'Colonial Interest Test': Does this subject generate revenue or enforce control? If yes, it's Reserved. Does it require spending money on public welfare? If yes, it's Transferred.
Dyarchy divided provincial administration into 'transferred' subjects under ministers and 'reserved' subjects kept with the Governor/Executive Council.
High-yield for questions on the Government of India Act, 1919 and provincial governance; it explains who held real power in provinces and why dyarchy was limited. Mastering this helps answer comparative questions on provincial autonomy, limitations on ministerial responsibility, and the evolution of Indian constitutional reforms.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 6
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms > p. 44
The Devolution Rules under the Act classified administration into central and provincial lists, forming the basis for later transferred/reserved separation.
Essential for understanding the legal mechanism that allocated subjects between Centre and provinces and why certain matters remained under strong central control. This concept links to federalism, legislative lists, and constitutional history questions about distribution of powers.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 6
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor and his Executive Council without responsibility to the legislature, and Governors had special veto powers over ministers.
Crucial for analysing the limits of representative government under dyarchy and for questions on administrative accountability and constitutional safeguards. Understanding this aids in essays and polity questions on colonial administrative structures and the roots of later reforms.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
The 1919 Act divided provincial subjects into 'transferred' (under ministerial responsibility) and 'reserved' (administered by the Governor without legislative responsibility).
High-yield for questions on dyarchy and provincial administration: explains the core structural change introduced in 1919, connects to debates on decentralisation and central control, and helps answer comparative questions about 1919 vs 1935 reforms.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Under Dyarchy > p. 530
Local self-government was placed in the 'transferred' category under the 1919 Act, bringing local bodies under popular (provincial ministerial) control.
Directly relevant to questions on the evolution of panchayats and municipal institutions: clarifies how local governance began to be placed under elected provincial authorities and links to later reforms and debates on decentralisation.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Under Dyarchy > p. 530
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 8: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS > GROWTH OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN INDIA > p. 179
Despite transfer of some subjects, the Governor retained special veto powers and control over reserved matters, constraining ministerial responsibility.
Helps explain criticisms of the 1919 system and the political response (e.g., calls for Swaraj); useful for essays and mains answers on constitutional limitations and administrative continuity under colonial rule.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > 4.2 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms > p. 44
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
The 1919 Act divided provincial functions into 'reserved' (administered by the Governor and his Executive Council) and 'transferred' categories.
High-yield for constitutional history questions on colonial-era reforms; mastering this clarifies how limited ministerial responsibility evolved and links to later reforms (1935 Act, provincial autonomy). Helps answer questions on distribution of administrative powers and continuity into later constitutional arrangements.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > Government of India Act of 1919 > p. 6
A common trap is 'Irrigation' vs 'Agriculture'. Under the 1919 Act, Agriculture was Transferred, but Irrigation (Canals/Water) was Reserved because it was a major revenue source. Expect a question swapping these two.
Use the 'Power vs. Responsibility' Heuristic. The British wanted to keep control (Police/Justice) and money (Land Revenue). They wanted to offload welfare headaches (Local Self-Govt).
Step 1: Local Self-Govt is a welfare burden -> Transferred.
Step 2: Eliminate options with '2'. (Eliminates A, B, D).
Step 3: Answer is C.
Mains GS-2 (Federalism & Governor's Role): The 'Reserved' subjects administered by the Governor without legislative accountability are the historical ancestors of the modern Governor's discretionary powers and the friction points in Centre-State relations today.