Constitutional Development of India

11. Consider the following statements about ‘the Charter Act of 1813’: 1

Consider the following statements about ‘the Charter Act of 1813’:

  • 1. It ended the trade monopoly of the East India Company in India except for trade in tea and trade with China.
  • 2. It asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian territories held by the Company.
  • 3. The revenues of India were now controlled by the British Parliament.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct. The Charter Act of 1813 ended the East India Company’s monopoly on trade in India, opening it to all British merchants. However, it specifically retained the Company’s monopoly over the trade in tea and its trade with China.
Statement 2 is correct. The Act formally asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the territories held by the Company in India, signifying a shift in the constitutional position.
Statement 3 is incorrect. While the Act brought the Company’s territories and revenues under greater parliamentary oversight, the revenues of India were still primarily under the control and management of the East India Company. Parliament did not take direct control of Indian revenues at this stage; that control was asserted more definitively by later Acts, particularly after the 1857 revolt.
The Act of 1813 also included provisions for the promotion of education in India (allocating funds for the revival and improvement of literature and the encouragement of learned natives) and permitted Christian missionaries to come to India.

Subscribe on YouTube

12. In the Federation established by The Government of India Act of 1935,

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

Subscribe on YouTube
Federal Legislature
Governor General
Provincial Legislature
Provincial Governors
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
In the Federation established by The Government of India Act of 1935, powers were divided into three lists: Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent. The Act explicitly assigned the residuary powers (i.e., powers not enumerated in any of the three lists) to the Governor General.
This distribution of powers was a key feature of the federal structure envisaged by the Act. While legislative subjects were largely enumerated, the allocation of residuary powers to the Governor General (rather than the federal or provincial legislatures) reflected the centralizing tendencies and the ultimate authority retained by the British Crown through its representative.
In independent India, the Constitution places residuary powers with the Union Parliament (Article 248 read with Entry 97 of the Union List), a significant departure from the 1935 Act and a strengthening of the central government compared to the provincial governments.

Join Our Telegram Channel

13. In the context of Indian history, the principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’

In the context of Indian history, the principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’ refers to

Subscribe on YouTube
Division of the central legislature into two houses
Introduction of double government i.e., Central and State governments
Having two sets of rulers; one in London and another in Delhi
Division of the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The principle of ‘Dyarchy’ refers to the division of provincial subjects into two categories.
– Dyarchy (or Diarchy) was a system of double government introduced in British India by the Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms).
– It applied to the provinces. Provincial subjects were divided into two lists: ‘Reserved’ subjects (like finance, police, justice, land revenue) which were administered by the Governor and his Executive Council, who were responsible to the British Parliament.
– ‘Transferred’ subjects (like education, health, local government, public works) were administered by the Governor acting with ministers who were nominated from the elected members of the provincial legislature and were responsible to the legislature. This division of subjects into ‘Reserved’ and ‘Transferred’ is what constituted Dyarchy at the provincial level.
Options A, B, and C describe different aspects of governance structures but do not accurately define the specific principle of ‘Dyarchy’ as implemented in British India. Option A describes a bicameral legislature. Option B describes federalism or double government (Centre and State) but not the specific nature of dual rule *within* the provincial executive. Option C describes the dual control from London and Delhi, which existed, but ‘Dyarchy’ specifically refers to the provincial executive arrangement.

Join Our Telegram Channel

14. The Government of India Act of 1919 clearly defined

The Government of India Act of 1919 clearly defined

Join Our Telegram Channel
the separation of power between the judiciary and the legislature
the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments
the powers of the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy
None of the above
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2015
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is B. The Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) clearly defined the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments by dividing the subjects of administration into central and provincial lists.
– The 1919 Act introduced a scheme of ‘dyarchy’ in the provinces, dividing provincial subjects into ‘transferred’ and ‘reserved’.
– It clearly demarcated the subjects handled by the central government and those handled by the provincial governments. This division of subjects essentially defined their respective jurisdictions.
The Act did not define a clear separation of power between the judiciary and the legislature in the modern sense. While it brought about significant changes in the legislative and executive structures at the centre and provinces, its primary innovation regarding the distribution of powers was the distinction between central and provincial spheres of governance through subject lists.

Subscribe on YouTube

15. What was/were the object/objects of Queen Victoria’s Proclamation (185

What was/were the object/objects of Queen Victoria’s Proclamation (1858)?

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. To disclaim any intention to annex Indian States
  • 2. To place the Indian administra- tion under the British Crown
  • 3. To regulate East India Company’s trade with India

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2 only
2 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2014
Download PDFAttempt Online
Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 was issued following the suppression of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Its main objectives were to formally transfer the administration of India from the East India Company to the British Crown and to address the grievances and concerns raised by the Revolt.
Let’s evaluate the statements:
1. To disclaim any intention to annex Indian States: The Proclamation promised the Indian princes that their territories would not be annexed and that the British Crown would respect their dignity and honour. This was a key objective.
2. To place the Indian administration under the British Crown: The Government of India Act 1858, which preceded the Proclamation, abolished the East India Company and transferred governing powers to the Crown. The Proclamation announced this change and outlined the new relationship. This was a key objective.
3. To regulate East India Company’s trade with India: By 1858, the East India Company had largely ceased its commercial activities and was primarily an administrative body. The focus of the Proclamation was on governance and political relations, not regulating the Company’s trade. This was not an object of the proclamation.
Therefore, only statements 1 and 2 are correct.
– The Proclamation is often referred to as the ‘Magna Carta of the Indian people’, although its promises were not always kept.
– It marked the beginning of direct British rule (the British Raj) in India.
– It also announced a policy of religious neutrality and equal treatment for all subjects, irrespective of race or creed (though implementation was often discriminatory).
The Proclamation aimed to conciliate the Indian ruling class and population after the upheaval of 1857, signaling a shift in British policy from annexation and reform towards consolidation and maintaining the status quo with the native states.

Subscribe on YouTube

16. The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the

The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the

Subscribe on YouTube
imposition of certain restrictions to carry arms by the Indians
imposition of restrictions on newspapers and magazines published in Indian languages
removal of disqualifications imposed on the Indian magistrates with regard to the trial of the Europeans
removal of a duty on imported cotton cloth
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2013
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the proposal to remove the disqualification imposed on Indian magistrates and judges regarding the trial of European British subjects in India.
The Ilbert Bill, introduced in 1883 during the tenure of Viceroy Lord Ripon, aimed to bring Indian and European judges to the same level of judicial authority. Prior to this, a European could not be tried by an Indian judge. The bill sparked widespread protest from the British community in India, leading to its amendment which significantly diluted its original intent and highlighted the racial tensions of the time.
The controversy, often termed the ‘White Mutiny’, exposed the racial prejudices prevalent among the British in India and contributed to the growth of Indian nationalism by demonstrating the discriminatory nature of the colonial administration and fostering a sense of unity among Indians against the common adversary.

Join Our Telegram Channel

17. Which one of the following commissions was not associated with public

Which one of the following commissions was not associated with public services in India ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Aitchison Commission
Islington Commission
Lee Commission
Radhakrishnan Commission
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Aitchison Commission (1886), the Islington Commission (1912), and the Lee Commission (1923) were all commissions appointed during the British Raj to review and make recommendations regarding the Indian Public Services (civil services). The Radhakrishnan Commission (1948), also known as the University Education Commission, was appointed after India’s independence to examine the state of university education and suggest improvements. Therefore, the Radhakrishnan Commission was not associated with the public services in the sense of civil administration, but with education.
Aitchison, Islington, and Lee Commissions dealt with Public Services/Civil Services during British rule. The Radhakrishnan Commission dealt with University Education after independence.
The recommendations of these commissions significantly influenced the structure, recruitment, and Indianisation of the civil services in British India. The Radhakrishnan Commission’s report was crucial for the development of the higher education system in independent India.

Subscribe on YouTube

18. Who among the following was the first non-official member to be electe

Who among the following was the first non-official member to be elected as Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly on 24-8-1925 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Vithalbhai J Patel
Muhammad Yakub
G. V. Mavalankar
Sardar Hukum Singh
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is (A) Vithalbhai J Patel.
Vithalbhai J. Patel was elected as the first non-official Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly on August 24, 1925. The Central Legislative Assembly was the lower house of the Indian Legislature during the British Raj. Previously, the presiding officers (Presidents) were usually officials nominated by the government. Patel’s election was a significant political event, demonstrating the growing influence of Indian nationalist leaders within the legislative framework provided by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (Government of India Act, 1919).
Muhammad Yakub later served as Speaker (President) after Vithalbhai Patel. G.V. Mavalankar was the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha (post-independence). Sardar Hukum Singh was also a Speaker of the Lok Sabha, serving later. Vithalbhai Patel’s election marked a crucial step towards Indian control over the legislative process.

Subscribe on YouTube

19. Why did the early nationalists oppose the Council Act of 1892 ?

Why did the early nationalists oppose the Council Act of 1892 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The number of members of the Imperial Legislative Council was increased
The number of members of Provincial Councils was increased
The Councils were given the right to discuss the annual budgets
The Act did not give the Indians control over the public funds
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is D) The Act did not give the Indians control over the public funds. Early nationalists opposed the Indian Councils Act of 1892 because, despite some concessions like increasing members and allowing budget discussion, it did not grant real power or control over financial matters to the elected Indian members.
– The Indian Councils Act of 1892 increased the number of additional members in the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils.
– It introduced the principle of representation, albeit through indirect elections for a section of members.
– It granted the members the right to discuss the annual budget (though not to vote on it or move resolutions on it) and to ask questions on matters of public interest.
– Early nationalists criticized the Act as inadequate because it did not give Indians effective control over legislative or financial matters, the majority of members remained official nominees, and the system of ‘election’ was indirect and limited.
The opposition stemmed from the nationalist demand for greater Indian participation and control in the administration and finances of the country. The Act of 1892 was seen as a grudging concession rather than a significant step towards self-governance or representative government with real power.

Subscribe on YouTube

20. Which one of the following had created the office of the Secretary of

Which one of the following had created the office of the Secretary of State for India?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The Councils Act 1861
The Government of India Act 1858
The Morley Minto Reforms
Montague Chelmsford reforms
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Government of India Act 1858 created the office of the Secretary of State for India.
Following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British Crown took direct control of India from the East India Company. The Government of India Act 1858 abolished the Board of Control and the Court of Directors and replaced them with the office of the Secretary of State for India, who was a member of the British cabinet and was assisted by a Council of India.
This Act marked a significant shift in the governance of India, establishing a direct link between the British Parliament and the Indian administration. The Secretary of State for India exercised the powers of the Crown relating to the government of India. The India Councils Act 1861, Morley-Minto Reforms (1909), and Montague-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) were subsequent constitutional reforms that further developed the legislative and administrative structure but did not create the office of the Secretary of State for India.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5