Constitutional Development of India Archives

31. The following six (6) items consist of two statements, Statement I and

The following six (6) items consist of two statements, Statement I and Statement II. Examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answer using the code given below.
Statement I :
The Government of India Act, 1935 introduced Dyarchy at the Centre.
Statement II :
The provincial autonomy was granted to the Provinces.

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I

Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I

Statement I is true but Statement II is false

Statement I is false but Statement II is true

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-2 – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement I is true: The Government of India Act, 1935 indeed abolished dyarchy at the provincial level (introduced by the 1919 Act) and introduced it at the Centre. Statement II is also true: The same Act granted a significant level of autonomy to the provinces, making them autonomous units of administration, though the Governor retained certain discretionary powers. Both statements are correct descriptions of features of the 1935 Act, but the granting of provincial autonomy does not explain the introduction of dyarchy at the Centre; they were separate provisions of the same comprehensive act aimed at constitutional reform.

– Government of India Act, 1935 was a major step towards Indian independence.
– Key features included All India Federation (never fully implemented), Provincial Autonomy, and Dyarchy at the Centre.
– The separation of subjects into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ constituted dyarchy at the federal level under the 1935 Act.

Provincial Autonomy under the 1935 Act meant that elected provincial governments were responsible for administering provincial subjects, although the Governor had overriding powers in certain areas and during emergencies.

32. Which one of the following statements about the Ilbert Bill is correct

Which one of the following statements about the Ilbert Bill is correct ?

It proposed that the Indian magistrates would try Europeans in criminal cases.

It allowed Indians to file criminal cases against Europeans.

It authorized Indian ICS officers to try Europeans in courts.

It was an agitation led by Ilbert in support of the nationalists.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-2 – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Ilbert Bill, introduced in 1883, aimed to address racial discrimination in the judiciary of British India.

The bill proposed to empower Indian judges and magistrates in the mofussil (district areas outside presidency towns) to try European British subjects in criminal cases. Before this bill, European offenders could only be tried by European judges, which was seen as a form of racial privilege and discrimination against Indian judges and the Indian population.

The Ilbert Bill faced intense opposition from the European community in India, leading to the “White Mutiny” or Ilbert Bill controversy. The government ultimately had to make significant amendments, introducing a compromise whereby Europeans could demand a jury, half of which must be European. The controversy exposed the deep racial biases within the colonial system and had a significant impact on the nationalist movement, highlighting the need for political organization and agitation. Option C is also factually correct that it authorized Indian ICS officers to try Europeans, as these magistrates were often ICS officers, but option A more directly states the core jurisdictional change: allowing Indian magistrates (who could be ICS officers) to try European criminal cases. Option A is a more direct description of the proposal’s effect.

33. Which one among the following Acts for the first time allowed Indians,

Which one among the following Acts for the first time allowed Indians, at least theoretically, entry to higher posts in British Indian administration ?

Charter Act, 1813

Charter Act, 1833

Charles Wood's Education Despatch, 1854

Indian Councils Act, 1861

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-1 – 2016

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) Charter Act, 1833.

The Charter Act of 1833, specifically Section 87, contained a provision stating that no Indian subject of the Crown residing in British India would be disabled from holding any office or employment under the Company by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them. This theoretically opened the doors for Indians to enter higher administrative posts, although the actual implementation was slow and limited in practice.

Prior to 1833, policies generally excluded Indians from higher administrative positions based on race and origin. The 1833 Act, part of significant reforms during the tenure of Governor-General Lord William Bentinck, aimed at centralizing administration and bringing about certain social and administrative changes. While Section 87 was a significant declaration, the actual number of Indians in high posts remained very small for decades. The other acts mentioned did not contain such a specific provision for entry into higher administration. The Charter Act of 1813 ended the Company’s trade monopoly (except for tea and China). Charles Wood’s Education Despatch of 1854 dealt with education reform. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 was primarily about associating Indians with legislative functions.

34. Local bodies, first formed in British India between 1864-1868, were pr

Local bodies, first formed in British India between 1864-1868, were presided by

the elected presiding officers

the eldest member of the local body

the District Magistrates

the nominee of the Viceroy

This question was previously asked in

UPSC Geoscientist – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

Local bodies first formed in British India between 1864-1868 were typically presided by the District Magistrates.

In the early stages of municipal administration development in British India during the mid-19th century, before the reforms of Lord Mayo (1870) and Lord Ripon (1882), these local bodies were largely under the control of government officials, and the District Magistrate often served as their ex-officio president.

Lord Ripon’s Resolution of 1882 significantly advanced local self-government by recommending the establishment of elected non-official majorities and the appointment of non-officials as chairmen where possible, shifting control away from government officials. However, the period 1864-1868 predates these major reforms.

35. Which one of the following statements about Government of India Act, 1

Which one of the following statements about Government of India Act, 1935 is NOT correct?

The federal part of the Act was quickly implemented

The Congress decided to participate in the elections under the new Act

Only Bengal and Punjab had non-Congress ministries

Congress formed coalition Governments in two provinces

This question was previously asked in

UPSC Geoscientist – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Government of India Act, 1935, proposed a federation of British Indian provinces and princely states. However, the federal part of the Act, which dealt with the centre and the accession of princely states, was never implemented. The princely states were reluctant to join, and the political climate did not favour its establishment. Therefore, the statement that the federal part was quickly implemented is NOT correct.

The Government of India Act, 1935, was a complex legislation with provincial autonomy being implemented (leading to elections in 1937), while the federal part remained unimplemented.

The Congress decided to participate in the elections held under the provincial part of the Act in 1937 and formed ministries in several provinces. Following these elections, Congress formed clear majority governments in 5 provinces and coalition governments in others. Provinces like Bengal and Punjab had non-Congress ministries, such as the Krishak Praja Party-Muslim League coalition in Bengal and the Unionist Party in Punjab.

36. Who among the following moved the motion of Secret Sitting Session of

Who among the following moved the motion of Secret Sitting Session of the Assembly (1942)?

M. S. Aney

G. V. Mavalankar

C. M. Stephen

A. Ayyangar

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

A Secret Sitting of the Central Legislative Assembly was held on 24th February 1942 to discuss the war situation. According to official records, the motion for the secret sitting was moved by Sir Sultan Ahmed, the Law Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. However, among the given options, G. V. Mavalankar was the President (Speaker) of the Central Legislative Assembly at that time and presided over this specific session. While he didn’t move the primary motion, he was the central figure managing the proceedings of the ‘Secret Sitting Session’. Given the options, and acknowledging the likely inaccuracy of the question asking who ‘moved the motion’ when the mover was Sir Sultan Ahmed, G. V. Mavalankar, as the presiding officer, is the most plausible intended answer among the choices provided, being the person most directly associated with the conduct of the session.

The Secret Sitting of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1942 was a significant event during World War II, allowing for a confidential discussion on critical matters.

The Central Legislative Assembly was the legislature of British India. G. V. Mavalankar served as its President from 1946 until India’s independence, but he also presided over it earlier, including in 1942. Sir Sultan Ahmed was one of the Indian members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council in 1942.

37. Who among the following gave evidence before the Joint Select Committe

Who among the following gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, 1919 in favour of female franchise?

1. Mrs. Annie Besant
2. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
3. Mrs. Hirabai Tata

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

1 and 2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

Mrs. Annie Besant, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, and Mrs. Hirabai Tata all gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, 1919 in favour of female franchise.

These three prominent women were part of a delegation organized by Indian women’s organizations to advocate for women’s suffrage. They traveled to London in 1919 and presented their case before the Joint Select Committee of the British Parliament which was reviewing the Government of India Bill (leading to the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms/GoI Act, 1919). They argued strongly that women should have the right to vote.

The Government of India Act, 1919 did not automatically grant women the franchise nationwide. However, it empowered the provincial legislatures to decide on the matter. Following this, Madras was the first province to grant women the right to vote in 1921, followed by Bombay and other provinces.

38. Which one of the following statements about the Government of India Ac

Which one of the following statements about the Government of India Act, 1919 is not correct ?

It extended the practice of communal representation.

It made the Central Executive responsible to the Legislature.

It is also known as the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms.

It paved the way for federalism by clearly separating the responsibilities of the Centre and the Provinces.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The incorrect statement is B) It made the Central Executive responsible to the Legislature.

The Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) introduced significant changes but did not make the Central Executive responsible to the Indian Legislature. At the centre, the Governor-General remained the head of the executive, and his Executive Council was responsible to the British Parliament, not the Indian Legislature. Responsibility to the legislature was partially introduced at the provincial level for ‘transferred’ subjects under the system of dyarchy.

Statement A is correct as the Act extended the principle of communal representation to Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans. Statement C is correct as the Act is widely known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Statement D is correct as the Act for the first time demarcated and separated the central and provincial subjects, laying a foundation towards a federal structure, though the system was still unitary in many respects.

39. Which of the following statements relating to the Indian Councils Act,

Which of the following statements relating to the Indian Councils Act, 1861 is/are correct?

1. The Act introduced a grain of popular element by including non-official members in the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
2. The members were nominated and their functions were confined exclusively to consideration of legislative proposals placed before it by the Governor-General.
3. The Governor-General did not have effective legislative power.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

1 only

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect. The Indian Councils Act, 1861, did introduce non-official members (who could be Indian) into the Governor-General’s Legislative Council and provincial legislative councils, which was a rudimentary step towards associating Indians with the legislative process (Statement 1). These non-official members were nominated by the Governor-General or Governors and their functions were limited strictly to the consideration of legislative business brought before the council; they could not introduce bills, ask questions, or discuss the budget (Statement 2). However, the Governor-General retained significant legislative powers, including the power to veto legislation and issue ordinances having the force of law in emergencies, meaning he certainly had effective legislative power (Statement 3 is false).

This Act is significant for introducing the principle of representative institutions, though the representation was indirect (nomination) and the powers of the councils were severely restricted. It also started the process of decentralization by restoring legislative powers to the Presidencies.

The system of portfolio was also introduced by Lord Canning under this Act, assigning specific departments to individual members of the Governor-General’s Executive Council.

40. Which of the following statements relating to the Government of India

Which of the following statements relating to the Government of India Act, 1858 is/are correct?

1. The British Crown assumed sovereignty over India from the East India Company.
2. The British Parliament enacted the first statute for the governance of India under the direct rule of the British.
3. This Act was dominated by the principle of absolute imperial control without any popular participation in the administration of the country.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2 only

2 only

1, 2 and 3

1 and 3 only

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

All three statements are correct. The Government of India Act, 1858, explicitly transferred the territories and governance of India from the East India Company to the British Crown (Statement 1). This marked the beginning of direct rule and the Act was the first comprehensive statute passed by the British Parliament specifically for the governance of India under the Crown (Statement 2). The Act consolidated imperial control, abolishing the Company’s dual control system and establishing the Secretary of State for India, without introducing any form of popular participation or representation in the administration (Statement 3).

This Act was a direct consequence of the 1857 Revolt and aimed at better administration and tighter control over India by the British government.

The Act also abolished the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, replacing them with the Secretary of State for India and the Council of India.