No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Without question, the most important legislation passed in 1935 by the British Parliament was the Government of India Act which received the royal assent on August 2, 1935. This statute has numerous claims to careful study by political scientists. On a purely quantitative scale, the Act has two obvious grounds for distinction. It will serve for some years as the fundamental law for one-fifth of the world's population; and it will operate—if all goes well—over the entire subcontinent of India. In the second place, though one hesitates to offer this as a recommendation, the new statute is by all odds the most enormous constitution in the world. In comparison with its bulk, the most notoriously extensive American constitutions (e.g., those of Oklahoma and California) pale into insignificance. The Government of India Act of 1935 contains 478 sections occupying exactly 300 pages, together with a further 130 pages of schedules. But perhaps it should be explained that the new act really contains two constitutions: one for India (210 pages plus schedules) and one for Burma (90 pages plus schedules).
1 25 & 26 George 5, ch. 42.
2 Report of Nehru committee appointed by the All-Parties Conference in 1928 to determine the principles of a constitution for India.
3 With respect to the origins of the Act, it may be observed that probably never before has a constitution-making body had as much documentary evidence before it. More than a dozen reports, scores of volumes of minutes of evidence, fill several feet of shelving. Since the Montagu-Chelmsford report on constitutional reforms (Cd. 9109 of 1918) and the supplementary Southborough report on franchise (Cmd. 141 of 1919) upon which the reforms of 1919 were based, there has been a constant flood of voluminous papers upon the Indian government, its working, and possible improvement. In addition to the bulky annual report of political and social progress, there have been the Lee report on the superior civil services (Cmd. 2128 of 1924), the Muddiman reforms enquiry (Cmd. 2360 of 1925), the Butler report on the Indian states (Cmd. 3302 of 1929), and the interim statutory report on education (Cmd. 3407 of 1929), not to mention the lengthy reports on agriculture and money.
4 Section 41, as amended, stipulated that within ten years a commission should inquire into “the working of the system of government, the growth of education, and the development of representative institutions in British India.”
5 9 and 10 George 5, c. 101.
6 Until 1935, there were nine provinces, including Burma (added in 1923) and Central Provinces (added in 1920). To the existing provinces (exclusive of Burma)—Madras, Bengal, Bombay, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, the Punjab, Bihar, the Central Provinces and Berar, and Assam—there are now added (1936) the North West Frontier Province, Orissa (set off from Bihar, which the Simon commission had characterized as “the most artificial unit of all”), and Sind (previously styled a “province,” but joined to Bombay).
7 Sec. 477.
8 Sec. 6.
9 Set out in Schedule 2.
10 “… if an address in that behalf has been presented [to the king] by each House of Parliament.”
11 Sec. 5.
12 Cf. Views of the Indian States. Cmd. 4843 (1935).
13 London Times, August 25, 1935.
14 Part V and Schedule 7.
15 Sec. 101.
16 The possible variations are enumerated in Schedule 2.
17 Sec. 99.
18 List I of Schedule 7.
19 List II of Schedule 7.
20 List III.
21 Sec. 100 (4).
22 Sec. 103.
23 Sec. 8.
24 Part VI.
25 Part VII.
26 Sec. 126.
27 Sec. 124.
28 Sec. 126 (2).
29 Part ii of Schedule 7.
30 Chap. II of Part IX.
31 Secs. 204–205.
32 Sec. 208.
33 Sec. 213.
34 Sec. 18. The suffrage qualifications are to be announced later.
35 Schedule 1, par. 19.
36 Sec. 60.
37 The slightly variable size of the councils is due to the provision for governors' nominees of one-fifth of the membership.
38 Schedule 6.
39 Madras, 146 out of 215; Bombay, 107 of 175; United Provinces, 140 of 228; Bihar, 86 of 152; Central Provinces, 84 of 162; and Orissa, 44 of 60.
40 117 of 250.
41 84 of 175.
42 Recommendations, p. 32.
43 Sec. 9 (1).
44 Sec. 10.
45 Secs. 13 and 53.
46 Cmd. 4805.
47 Sec. 11. Is this surreptitiously introducing “dyarchy” at the center?
48 Sec. 12. A similar list is found in Sec. 52 for the governors.
49 Sec. 32.
50 Sec. 38—by banning certain subjects from discussion.
51 Sec. 44, and 90 for the governors' power.
52 Recommendations, p. 22.
53 Chap. 5 of Part II for the federal government, and of Part III for the provinces.
54 Sec. 110.
55 Sec. 108.
56 Sec. 111, though the government may exclude those inciting to violence or overthrow of government; it will be noted that the residents of other dominions are not so protected.
57 Part X.
58 Sec. 270.
59 By Sec. 306, inserted by the House of Lords.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.