Government of India Act, 1919 (Montague-Chelmsford Reforms):

The Secretary of State, Montagu, introduced a Bill in the British Parliament which became the Indian Act of
1919. The Act laid down in its Preamble, the aim of British which was to institute a responsible government in
India as an integral part of British Empire. The responsible government was to be capable of progressive
realization through the increasing association of the Indians in every branch of administration. The sovereignty
of the British Parliament over India was asserted by the Act. There took place a lot of changes in the Central as
well as in the Provincial administration after the introduction of this Act.

The Secretary of State for India who used to be paid out of the Indian revenue was now to be paid by the British
Exchequer. Some of the functions of the Secretary were entrusted to the High Commissioner for India who was
to be appointed and paid by the Government of India. The control of the Secretary of State was also reduced in
the sphere of Provincial administration.

The Act increased the number of Indians in the Governor-General’s Executive Council to three in a Council of
total eight members. The Indian members were entrusted with departments like law, education, labour, health
and industries. The new scheme of the government envisaged a division of subjects into Central List and
Provincial List.

The subjects of national importance such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, Political Relations, Posts and Telegraphs,
Public debt, Communications, Civil and Criminal Laws and Procedure etc. were included in the Central List,
while others like Public Health, Local Self Government, Education, Medical Administration, Land Revenue
Administration, Water Supply, Famine Relief, Agriculture and Law and Order were included in the Provincial
List.

The Act set up a bicameral legislature in the Centre. Two Houses, Council of State and Central Legislative
Assembly were established instead of one House in the Centre. The Legislative Assembly was constituted of
145 members- 41 to be nominated and 104 were to be elected. Of the 41 nominated members, 25 members were
officials and 16 non-officials. Of the 104 elected members, 52 were to be returned by the general constituencies,
32 by the Communal Constituencies (30 by Muslims and 2 by the Sikhs) and 20 by the special constituencies (7
by landlords, 9 by Europeans and 4 by Indian Commercial Houses).

The tenure of the Assembly was fixed for a period of three years but it could be extended by the Governor-
General. The first speaker of the Assembly was to be nominated by the government while the subsequent
speakers were to be elected by the members of the Assembly. The Central Legislative Assembly could legislate
for the whole of British India, for the Indian subjects and servants of the government, whether inside or outside
the country. It could amend or repeal any law existing in the country with the prior approval of the Governor-
General.

The members of the Legislative Assembly were given the right to move resolutions and motions for
adjournment of the house to consider urgent questions of public importance immediately. They had the right to
ask questions and supplementary short-notice questions could also be asked. The members enjoyed the right to
freedom of speech.
However there were certain restrictions imposed on the legislatures. In certain cases like: amendment or repeal
of an existing law or an ordinance of the Governor General; foreign relations and the relations with the Indian
States; discipline or maintenance of military, naval and air forces; public debt and public revenue; and religion,
religious rites and usages of the people, previous sanction of the Governor General was required for the
introduction of a bill.

Further if the Governor General felt that any bill or a part of it affects the safety and tranquillity of British India,
or any part thereof, he could prevent its consideration. If on the advice of the Governor General, the legislature
refused to pass a law the Governor General could pass it himself subject to the sanction of the Crown.

He could make and promulgate ordinances in cases of emergency which could last for six months and which
had the same force of law as passed by the legislature. With regard to the Budget, it was laid down in the Act
that the Government would submit proposals for appropriation in the shape of demands for grant in the
Legislative Assembly. The franchise of both the houses was restricted and differed in different provinces. In
case of Council of State, voters must have either have an annual income of not less than Rs. 10,000 or paid land
revenue of Rs. 750.

The qualification of the voters for the Legislative Assembly were either the payment of municipal taxes
amounting to not less than Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 per annum, or occupation or ownership of a house of the rental value
of Rs. 180 or assessment to income-tax on an annual income of not less than Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 5,000 or
assessment to land revenue for Rs. 50 to Rs. 150 per year varying from province to province. The Governor-
General was given the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve the chambers. He had the right of addressing
the members of the two houses.

The most significant changes made by the Act of 1919 were in the field of Provincial administration. The Act
introduced, what is called Dyarchy, in the Provinces. Under this system, the subjects to be dealt with by the
Provincial government were divided into two parts: ‘Reserved’ and ‘Transferred’ subjects. The Governor was
entrusted with the power to administer the reserved subjects with the help of the members of the Executive
Council who were nominated by him and who were not responsible to the legislatures.

The ‘Transferred Subjects’ were administered by the Governor with the help of the Ministers appointed by him
from among the elected members of the legislatures. The rights of interference enjoyed by the Secretary of State
in Council and the Governor-General in Council were restricted. The ‘Reserved Subjects’ were: Land Revenue,
Famine Relief, Justice, Police, Pensions, Criminal, Printing Presses, Irrigation and Water ways, Mines,
Factories, Industrial Disputes, Motor Vehicles, Electricity, Gas Boilers, Labour Welfare, Minor Ports and Public
Services, etc.

In the ‘Transferred Subjects’, the ministers advised the Governors in respect of Education, Libraries, Museums,
Local Self Governments, Medical Relief, Public Health and Sanitation, Agriculture, Cooperative Societies,
Veterinary, Fisheries, Public Works, Excise, Industries, Weights and Measures, Control of Public
Entertainments, Religious and Charitable Endowments, etc.

The Governor could deal with each minister individually. On matters of allocation of funds, there was joint
consultation between the ‘Reserved’ and the ‘Transferred’ subjects of the government. The direct system of
election was introduced for the Provincial Councils. High property qualifications, the communal and class
electorates and special weightage to certain communities were fixed for the Provincial franchise. The same old
communal electorate system was maintained that hurt the sentiments of Gandhi. This Act came at the wrong
time and thus could not attract the members of the Congress.

This appeared to Gandhi as ‘Satanic’. The introduction of the Dyarchy system in the Provinces created
complicated situation in the sphere of administration in the Provinces. The Dyarchy was a cumbersome,
complex, confused system having no legal basis and was foredoomed to failure.

The main features of the reforms were as follows:

(i) Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy:

Executive:
a.) Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was
to be the executive head in the province.

b.) Subjects were divided into two lists: “reserved” which included subjects such as law and order, finance, land
revenue, irrigation, etc. and “transferred” subjects such as education, health, local government, industry,
agriculture, excise, etc.

The “reserved” subjects were to be administered by the Governor through his Executive Council of
bureaucrats, and the “transferred” subjects were to be administered by ministers nominated from among the
elected members of the legislative council.

c.) The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was
passed against them by the legislature, while the executive councillors were not to be responsible to the
legislature.

d.) In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the governor could take over the administration
of “transferred” subjects also.

e.) The secretary of state and the governor-general could interfere in respect of “reserved” subjects while in
respect of the “transferred” subjects, the scope for their interference was restricted.

Legislature:
a.) Provincial Legislative Councils were further expanded—70% of the members were to be elected.

b.) The system of communal and class electorates was further consolidated.

c.) Women were also given the right to vote.

d.) The Legislative Councils could initiate legislation but the Governor’s assent was required. The Governor
could veto bills and issue ordinances.

e.) The Legislative Councils could reject the budget but the Governor could restore it, if necessary.

f.) The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

(ii) Central Government—Still Without Responsible Government:

Executive:
a.) The Governor-General was to be the chief executive authority.

b.) There were to be two lists for administration—central and provincial.

c.) In the Viceroy’s Executive Council of eight members, three were to be Indians.

d.) The Governor-General retained full control over the “reserved” subjects in the provinces.

e.) The Governor-General could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the Central Legislature and issue
ordinances.

Legislature:
a.) A bicameral arrangement was introduced. The lower house or Central Legislative Assembly would consist of
144 members (41 nominated and 103 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special) and the upper
house or Council of State would have 60 members (26 nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims,
3 Europeans and 1 Sikh).

b.) The Council of State had a tenure of 5 years and had only male members, while the Central Legislative
Assembly had a tenure of 3 years.

c.) The legislators could ask questions and pass adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75% of
the budget was still not votable.

d.) Some Indians found their way into important committees including finance.

Drawbacks:
a.) Franchise was very limited.

b.) At the centre, the legislature had no control over the Governor-General and his Executive Council.

c.) At the Centre, the division of subjects was not found to be satisfactory.

d.) Allocation of seats for Central Legislature to provinces was based on ‘importance’ of provinces. For
instance, Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s commercial importance led to the allocation of more
seats to these two provinces.

e.) At the level of provinces, division of subjects and parallel administration of two parts was irrational and
hence unworkable.

f.) The provincial ministers had no control over finances and the bureaucrats, leading to constant friction
between the two. Ministers were often not consulted on important matters too; in fact, they could be
overruled by the Governor on any matter that the latter considered special. On the home government (in
Britain) front, the Government of India Act, 1919 made an important change with respect to the Secretary of
State who was henceforth to be paid out of the British exchequer.

Congress’ Reaction:
The Congress met at a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared
the reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-government instead.

Rowlatt Act:
While, on the one hand, the Government dangled the carrot of constitutional reforms, on the other hand, it
decided to arm itself with extraordinary powers to suppress any discordant voices against the reforms. In March
1919, it passed the Rowlatt Act even though every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council
opposed it.

This Act authorised the Government to imprison any person without trial and conviction in a court of law, thus
enabling the Government to suspend the right of habeas corpus which had been the foundation of civil liberties
in Britain.