Constitutional Development of India Archives

41. When was the monopoly of China trade lost by East India Company ?

When was the monopoly of China trade lost by East India Company ?

1813

1833

1838

1860

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-1 – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) 1833.

The Charter Act of 1833 completely abolished the East India Company’s commercial functions, including its monopoly on the tea trade with China. This opened up the China trade to all British merchants.

The Charter Act of 1813 had ended the East India Company’s monopoly over trade with India, except for the trade in tea and the trade with China. The Act of 1833 was a further step towards liquidating the Company’s commercial role and converting it into a purely administrative body for British possessions in India.

42. The creation of a Federal Court in India was advocated by which of the

The creation of a Federal Court in India was advocated by which of the following Acts/Commissions?

The Government of India Act, 1919

The Lee Commission, 1923

The Government of India Act, 1935

The Indian Councils Act, 1909

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-1 – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Government of India Act, 1935 explicitly provided for the establishment of a Federal Court in India, which was subsequently inaugurated in 1937.

The Federal Court was intended to interpret the Act and decide disputes between the constituent units of the proposed federation. It functioned until the Supreme Court of India was established in 1950, inheriting its jurisdiction.

43. Which one of the following Acts reserved seats for women in Legislatur

Which one of the following Acts reserved seats for women in Legislatures in accordance with the allocation of seats for different communities?

The Government of India Act, 1858

The Indian Councils Act, 1909

The Government of India Act, 1919

The Government of India Act, 1935

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-1 – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Government of India Act, 1935, introduced several significant reforms regarding representation in legislatures. While earlier acts like the Government of India Act, 1919, had granted limited voting rights to some women, the 1935 Act expanded the franchise and, importantly, reserved seats for women in the provincial legislatures. These reserved seats were allocated in accordance with the distribution of seats among different communities (General, Muslim, Sikh, etc.).

The Government of India Act, 1935, aimed to broaden representation in the legislatures. It provided for reserved seats for various communities, including Scheduled Castes (then called Depressed Classes), and also included provisions specifically for the representation of women by reserving a certain number of seats for them in the provincial assemblies, typically within the general constituencies.

The earlier acts did not have specific provisions for reserving seats for women. The Indian Councils Act, 1909, primarily dealt with separate electorates for Muslims. The Government of India Act, 1919, introduced diarchy and extended communal representation but did not reserve seats for women. The 1858 Act transferred power to the Crown and did not address legislative representation in this manner.

44. Which of the following statements about the Ilbert Bill (1883) is/are

Which of the following statements about the Ilbert Bill (1883) is/are correct?

It proposed to grant limited criminal jurisdiction to native officials.
It proposed to grant complete civil and criminal jurisdiction to native officials.
The proposed Bill generated opposition from England’s European subjects in India.
In spite of opposition to the Bill, it was passed without any modifications.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2

2 only

1 and 3

3 and 4

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-1 – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. The Ilbert Bill aimed to remove the disability of Indian judges from trying European British subjects in criminal cases, effectively granting them criminal jurisdiction over Europeans at the level of Sessions Judges and Presidency Magistrates. Statement 1, referring to granting ‘limited’ criminal jurisdiction, can be interpreted as referring to this specific extension of power to certain Indian officials. Statement 3 is correct because the proposed Bill sparked strong opposition from the European community in India, leading to the ‘White Mutiny’. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Bill primarily dealt with criminal jurisdiction over Europeans, not complete civil and criminal jurisdiction. Statement 4 is incorrect; due to the intense opposition, the Bill was significantly modified before being passed as a compromise in 1884.

– The Ilbert Bill proposed to allow Indian Sessions Judges and Presidency Magistrates to try European British subjects in criminal cases.
– The Bill generated widespread opposition from the European community in India.
– The final Act was a watered-down version of the original proposal.

The controversy highlighted racial discrimination in the justice system and exposed the deep-seated prejudices of the European community against Indians holding positions of power. It became a significant event in the growth of Indian nationalism.

45. Consider the following statements: The province of Assam was created

Consider the following statements:

The province of Assam was created in the year 1911
Eleven districts comprising Assam were separated from the Lieutenant Governorship of Bengal and established as an independent administration under a Chief Commissioner in the year 1874

Which of the statements given above is / are correct?

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-1 – 2016

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is 2 only.

Statement 1: The province of Assam was not created in 1911. Assam was reconstituted as a Chief Commissioner’s Province in 1912 after the annulment of the Partition of Bengal. It was separated from Bengal as a Chief Commissioner’s Province much earlier, in 1874.
Statement 2: Eleven districts comprising Assam were indeed separated from the Lieutenant Governorship of Bengal and established as an independent administration under a Chief Commissioner in the year 1874. This statement is correct.

The administrative history of Assam saw several changes. It was part of the Bengal Presidency under British rule. In 1874, it was separated and made a Chief Commissioner’s Province. In 1905, it was merged with Eastern Bengal following the Partition of Bengal. In 1912, the Partition was annulled, and Assam was again made a Chief Commissioner’s Province, and later a Governor’s Province in 1921.