The Government of India Act 1919 was enacted by the British to implement crucial constitutional changes in response to India’s demands following the First World War. The Act specified that a commission would be appointed to review these constitutional arrangements in ten years. However, this review was conducted earlier by the Simon Commission.

The report of the Simon Commission proposed several recommendations, including the abolition of dyarchy, the introduction of a greater degree of responsible government in the provinces, and the continuation of communal electorates. The Indian National Congress rejected the Simon Commission’s report. To enhance Indian involvement in the formulation of a new constitutional framework, a series of Round Table Conferences took place in the 1930s. These conferences brought together representatives from the British government, British India, and Indian princely states. Based on the discussions held at these conferences, a ‘White Paper on Constitutional Reforms’ was drafted and submitted to the Joint Select Committee of the British Parliament. The committee’s recommendations were subsequently integrated into the Government of India Act 1935, with certain modifications.

Provisions of the Government of India Act 1935

• Provincial Autonomy: The act abolished ‘dyarchy’ in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial autonomy.’ Responsible government was established in the provinces, meaning that the Governor was required to act on the advice of ministers accountable to the provincial legislature. However, this system was in operation only from 1937 to 1939.
• Dyarchy at the Centre: The act provided for the implementation of dyarchy at the Centre, where federal subjects were classified into ‘transferred’ and ‘reserved’ subjects. However, this system never became operational.
• Bicameralism in Provinces: Bicameralism was introduced in six out of eleven provinces: Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Assam, the United Provinces, and Bihar.
• Division of Powers: Powers were divided between the Centre and provinces into three lists: the Central List, the Provincial List, and the Concurrent List. The residual powers were vested with the Viceroy.
• Abolition of the Council of India: The act abolished the 15-member Council of India, which had been created by the Government of India Act, 1919.
• All-India Federation: It provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. However, this federation never became operational because the princely states did not join.

• Extension of Separate Electorates: The act extended separate electorates to include depressed classes (scheduled castes), women, and labor (workers).
• Extension of Franchise: Approximately 10% of the population gained voting rights under this act.
• Federal Court: The act provided for the establishment of a Federal Court, which was set up in 1937.
• Reserve Bank of India: It facilitated the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India to regulate the currency and credit in the country.
• Creation of Public Service Commissions: The act created the Federal Public Service Commission (PSC), as well as Provincial PSCs and Joint PSCs for two or more states.

Significance of the Government of India Act 1935

The Government of India Act was designed to establish a fully responsible government in the British Indian provinces. In 1937, large-scale elections were conducted across all provinces for the first time, in line with the provisions of the Act. However, the proposed Federation did not come to fruition as it was not accepted by the Princely states. Nonetheless, many aspects of our Constitution are derived from this Act. Thus, it can be concluded that the Act significantly contributed to setting India on the path toward Parliamentary democracy.

Major Criticism of the Government of India Act 1935

Indian leaders felt that the Government of India Act 1935 did not adequately address their demands for greater autonomy and self-rule. Therefore, it faced several criticisms: 

• Limited Autonomy and retained British Control: Indian Leaders criticized the Act for not granting full autonomy, particularly at the central level. Despite provincial autonomy, the central government remained under substantial British control. The Governor-General retained significant powers, including the authority to dismiss provincial governments and veto legislation, which undermined the notion of responsible self-government. 
• Federal Scheme Flaws: The proposed federal structure was criticized for being unworkable and unfair. Since it required the accession of princely states who showed little interest, the federal scheme was never implemented. Indian leaders viewed the federation as a mechanism to perpetuate British influence by involving the princely states, which were seen as loyal to the British crown. 
• Communal Representation: The continuation and expansion of separate electorates for different religious and social communities were criticized for deepening communal division. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress opposed separate electorates, arguing that they would lead to further fragmentation of Indian society along religious lines. 
• Disparity in Provincial Powers: The Act granted uneven powers to different provinces, creating disparities and potential administrative efficiencies. Some regions received more autonomy than others, which was viewed as inconsistent and potentially divisive. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, Indian leaders viewed the Government of India Act 1935 as a means to placate Indian demands without making substantial concessions toward self-governance. The Act’s perceived inadequacies fueled further demands for complete independence, leading to more intense nationalist movements and eventually contributing to India’s independence in 1947. While the Act provided a blueprint for administrative governance, the framers of the Indian Constitution used it as a springboard, learning from its strengths and shortcomings. They crafted a constitution that was more representative, inclusive, and democratic, ensuring that it met the aspirations and needs of a newly independent and diverse nation. This resulted in a constitution that is the world’s longest-written national constitution, reflecting a commitment to democratic principles and social justice.