Government of India Act of 1935

🧭 The Background: From the Round Table to the Act

After the Round Table Conferences (1930–32), the British government needed to transform their promises into legal form.

• Their recommendations were first published as a White Paper in March 1933.
• It was then debated in the British Parliament, and a Joint Parliamentary Committee (with members from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords) was appointed to examine it in detail.
• The Committee submitted its report on 22 November 1934.
• Based on that, a Bill was introduced and passed on 2 August 1935, becoming the Government of India Act, 1935, after receiving the Royal Assent.

Though it appeared as a constitutional reform, the Act was, in truth, a political tool — aimed at stabilising British control under the guise of reform.

🎯 British Intention Behind the Act

The British had successfully suppressed the Civil Disobedience Movement (1932–33), but they knew repression alone could not maintain control forever.
A new strategy was needed — one that would weaken Indian nationalism from within.

Hence, their objectives were:

1. To divide the Congress internally.
   By offering limited reforms, they hoped to trigger debate — between moderates who might join provincial governments and radicals who would reject them.
2. To lure Congressmen with power.
   Once Indian leaders had tasted office, the British believed they would grow accustomed to authority and privileges, making them reluctant to return to politics of sacrifice and jail.
3. To weaken the Congress centre.
   The new system of provincial autonomy would create strong provincial leaders, each confined to his own state, thereby weakening the central leadership of the Congress.

So, in essence, the British were using constitutional reform as a political sedative — to calm, divide, and domesticate the nationalist movement.

⚖️ The Government of India Act of 1935: Key Provisions

Supremacy of the British Parliament

The Act had no Preamble, which was not accidental.
This meant that the Preamble of the 1919 Act continued — asserting that responsible government in India would be introduced by stages at the discretion of the British Parliament.

In simple terms:

• The British Parliament remained supreme.
• All powers to amend, alter, or repeal the Indian constitution were reserved for the British Parliament.
• The Indian government was not sovereign even in theory.

So, whatever followed — the federation, the provincial autonomy — all functioned under the shadow of Westminster.

All-India Federation (Proposed but Never Realised)

The Act proposed a grand idea:
👉 A federation that would unite British Indian provinces and Princely States under a single constitution.

But there was a catch — the princely states had the option to join or not to join.
Their relationship with the federation was to be defined through an Instrument of Accession, a kind of treaty specifying what powers they would share.

Conditions for Formation

The federation would come into existence only if:

1. Princely states filling at least 52 out of 104 seats in the Council of State joined, and
2. Their combined population formed half of the total population of all Indian states.

Since these conditions were never met, the federation never came into existence.
Thus, the Central Government continued to function under the Act of 1919 until 1946.

Still, conceptually, this was the first formal proposal for a federal structure in India — uniting provinces and princely states.

Dyarchy at the Centre

The system of Dyarchy, which had earlier existed in the provinces under the 1919 Act, was now introduced at the Centre.

• Reserved Subjects: Defence, foreign affairs, tribal areas — directly controlled by the Governor-General with the help of executive councillors not responsible to the legislature.
• Transferred Subjects: Handled by ministers who were responsible to the legislature.

But here too, the Governor-General had the final authority over both sets of subjects — making the idea of self-government practically hollow.

Bicameral Legislature at the Centre

The Act established a bicameral legislature consisting of two Houses:

(a) The Federal Assembly (Lower House)

• Total seats: 375
  • 250 (67%) elected by the provincial legislative assemblies.
  • 125 (33%) nominated by the rulers of the princely states.
• Election: Indirect.
• Term: 5 years.
• Could pass laws and move no-confidence motions against ministers.

(b) The Council of State (Upper House)

• Total seats: 260
  • 156 (60%) elected from British India.
  • 104 (40%) nominated by princely states.
• Election: Direct.
• It was a permanent body, with one-third retiring every 3 years.

This structure was meant to give the appearance of representation — but the real power remained with the Governor-General and the British authorities.

Undue Weightage to the Princely States

The princely states, which had only about one-fourth of India’s population, were given disproportionate representation —

• 33% in the Federal Assembly, and
• 40% in the Council of State.

Moreover:

• Their representatives were not elected by the people,
• But nominated by the rulers.

In effect, the princes were to be used as British allies to check and balance nationalist influence in the legislature.

Division of Legislative Powers

For the first time, powers were divided between the Centre and Provinces using three lists:

1. Federal List – 59 subjects (Centre’s domain)
2. Provincial List – 54 subjects (Provinces’ domain)
3. Concurrent List – 36 subjects (shared powers)

👉 The residuary powers (those not listed) were given to the Governor-General, not to the Centre — again reinforcing British control.

Federal Court

A major innovation — the Federal Court was established in 1937.
It had the power to:

• Interpret the constitution, and
• Settle disputes between provinces and the Centre.

This was the first time India had a central judicial body with constitutional authority — the direct forerunner of today’s Supreme Court.

🚫 Limitations and Criticisms

Despite appearing modern, the Act was deeply colonial in spirit.

1. The All-India Federation never materialised, as the princes refused to join.
2. Supremacy of British Parliament continued — India was not a true federation.
3. Governor-General and Secretary of State remained all-powerful, above any Indian institution.
4. Defence and Foreign Affairs stayed under British control.
5. The Governor-General could override Indian ministers — so there was no responsible government at the Centre.
6. The Act did not mention Dominion Status, let alone Independence.
7. It kept the illusion of federalism but denied real sovereignty.

Thus, the 1935 Act was a half-hearted, one-sided constitution, designed to look liberal but function autocratically.

🌾 The Federal Character (on Paper)

Despite its flaws, the Act’s framework laid down some key principles of federalism:

• A written constitution.
• Division of powers between Centre and Provinces.
• A Federal Court to interpret it.

Though the British used these features for control, independent India later borrowed many of them.

At provincial Level

🧭 Provincial Autonomy: The New Promise

For the first time, the Act abolished Dyarchy in the provinces — a system that had existed since 1919 — and replaced it with Provincial Autonomy.

What This Meant

Earlier, under the 1919 Act:

• Provinces were like agents of the Central Government.
• Their powers were not their own but delegated by the Centre.
• Dyarchy divided subjects into ‘transferred’ (handled by Indian ministers) and ‘reserved’ (handled by the British governor) — making the system both confusing and undemocratic.

Under the 1935 Act:

• Provinces were now given a separate legal identity — independent of the Governor-General or Secretary of State.
• Their authority came directly from the British Crown, not from the Centre.
• Provinces could now also raise loans and manage their finances independently.

This was a big constitutional shift — the provinces were no longer mere subordinates; they were now autonomous units within the proposed federation.

🏛️ Responsible Government in the Provinces

The 1935 Act introduced “responsible government” in all eleven provinces of British India:
Bombay, Madras, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Central Provinces, United Provinces, North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Punjab, and Sindh.

This meant that:

• The Provincial Executive (the Council of Ministers) was now responsible to the provincial legislature,
• The Ministry could be removed by a vote of no confidence, and
• For the first time, Indian ministers controlled almost all subjects at the provincial level.

However — and this is crucial — the Governors retained enormous powers.

Governor’s Powers and Safeguards

Even within this new “responsible” setup, the British ensured safeguards for their own control:

• The Governor could veto any bill or pass ordinances on his own.
• He retained control over the civil services and the police.
• In matters related to law and order, minorities, backward areas, or British commercial interests, the Governor could override the ministry.

So while Indians could form governments, the Governor was like a “constitutional dictator”— nominally neutral, but in reality, the British watchdog.

🧩 Bicameral Legislatures

The Act introduced bicameral legislatures (two houses) in six provinces:
👉 Bombay, Bengal, Madras, United Provinces, Bihar, and Assam.

The remaining provinces continued with unicameral legislatures (single-house systems).

⚠️ Limitations of Provincial Autonomy

Despite being presented as a great democratic reform, this autonomy was more apparent than real.

• The Governor’s veto power restricted the real functioning of ministers.
• Governors were appointed by and accountable to the British government, not the Indian electorate.

Thus, the provinces were autonomous in form but not in substance.

⚖️ From Decentralisation to Federation: The Constitutional Shift

Let’s recall the difference between the 1919 Act and the 1935 Act:

Aspect	1919 Act	1935 Act
Nature of system	Decentralisation	Federation (proposed)
Legal status of provinces	Agents of Centre	Separate legal entities
Source of authority	Derived from Centre	Derived from the Crown
Type of subjects	Divided under Dyarchy	All subjects under popular control (with Governor’s safeguards)

So, under the 1935 Act, for the first time, the provinces:

• Exercised executive and legislative powers in their own right,
• Were not subordinate to the Centre, and
• Became constituent units of a proposed federal India.

👉 Until 1930, India was a completely unitary state.
It was only through this Act that a federal structure was formally envisioned — bringing together Governor’s Provinces, Chief Commissioners’ Provinces, and Princely States.

⚙️ Federation and the Parliamentary System

The 1935 Act rested on two guiding principles:

1. Federalism, and
2. Parliamentary Responsibility.

However, both were heavily distorted by British “safeguards.”

• The federal principle had a unitary bias — giving the Governor-General and Governors extraordinary powers to override elected governments.
• The parliamentary principle was only half-real: ministries were “responsible” to legislatures, but only as long as the British Governor allowed them to function freely.

Thus, it was a controlled democracy — liberty with a leash.

⚔️ Separate Electorates: The Division Deepens

Instead of correcting the communal divisions created by the Morley–Minto Reforms (1909) and the Act of 1919, the 1935 Act deepened them.

• Separate electorates were now extended beyond Muslims and Sikhs to include:
  • Women,
  • Depressed Classes (Scheduled Castes), and
  • Labour (workers).

The British justified this as “representation for all,” but in reality, it was part of their divide-and-rule policy, institutionalising social and communal distinctions.

🗳️ Restricted Franchise: Limited Democracy

While franchise (the right to vote) was expanded — and women were given the same voting rights as men — the system was still highly restricted.

Only about 14% of the adult population was eligible to vote.
Eligibility was based on property, education, or tax qualifications.

So, the Act did not bring universal adult franchise; democracy was for the privileged few, not the common Indian.

🏛️ Administrative Changes

The Act also brought several administrative reorganisations and institutional reforms:

1. Abolition of the Council of India (set up under the 1858 Act).
   • It was replaced by a small advisory team for the Secretary of State for India.
2. Provincial Reorganisation:
   • Sindh separated from Bombay.
   • Bihar and Orissa became separate provinces.
   • Burma was completely separated from British India.
3. Establishment of Major Institutions:
   • Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1935 — to manage currency and credit.
   • Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for central recruitment.
   • Provincial Public Service Commissions (PPSCs) in each province.
   • Joint Public Service Commission (JPSC) for two or more provinces.

These developments made the Indian administrative system more structured — the RBI and PSCs continue to be pillars of governance even today.

🇮🇳 Nationalist Response: Rejection with Participation

Interestingly, the Government of India Act of 1935 managed to unite all Indian political parties — in opposition to it!

• The Indian National Congress, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and Liberals — all condemned it as disappointing and deceptive.
• The Act failed to deliver “Dominion Status” or real responsible government.
• Yet, despite their criticism, all major parties decided to contest the 1937 provincial elections — to test how much political space the Act allowed.

This shows the maturity of Indian politics: even while rejecting the Act ideologically, nationalists decided to engage with the system tactically, using elections as a platform to advance the cause of independence.