1919 Indian Councils ActorMontague-Chelmsford Reforms
• In order to achieve responsible government it wasnecessary to provide for the increasing association of theIndians in every branch of administration and the gradualdevelopment of self governing Institutions.• The Act made many changes in the administration ofIndia.1. The secretary of state for Indian was paid out of theIndian revenues. It was now provided that the future hewould be paid out of British revenues.2. Some of the functions of the secretary of state forIndia were taken away from him and given to a HighCommissioner for India who was to be appointed and paidby the government of India.
3. The High Commissioner was to act as the agent of theGovernor General in Council.4. The control of the secretary of state was reduced in theprovincial sphere insofar as the transferred departmentwere concerned.5. The Act setup bicameral Legislature at the centre inplace of the Imperial legislature Council consisting of onehouse.The names of the two houses were the two Houses were theCentral Legislative AssemblyCouncil of State.
Council of State Central Legislative Assembly5 years 3 years60 members 145 Members33 elected +27 Nominated 103 Elected + 42 NominatedOut of 103 elected communal constituencies30 for Muslims2 for Sikhs7 for landholders9 for Europeans4 for Indian Commerce
The first speaker of the Central Assembly was nominated bythe Government but subsequent speakers were elected bythe members of the central Assembly.Government decided to conduct direct lections for both theHouses.Voters for Council of State:In the council of State voter were assessed either toincome tax or land revenue of Rs.750 to Rs.5000In addition, those how had previous experience in publicwork or who were recognized as men of high scholarshipor academic enrolled on the election roll of generalconstancies for the Council of State.
Voters for Central Legislative AssemblyThe qualification of the voter for Central Assembly waseither the payment of Municipal taxes amounting to notless than Rs. 15-20 per annum.OrOwnership of a house of an annual income of not less thanRs. 3000 to 5000.OrAssessment of land revenue for Rs. 50 to 150 per annum.The total number of voter for Council of state was about17,343.For Central Assembly about 9,09,874 in 1920
Powers of Two HousesIt could make laws for the whole of British India for thesubjects of His Majesty and service of crown in any partof India.The Central Legislature had no power to amend or repealany parliamentary statues relating to British India.Governor General Powers• G.G was given to the power to summon, prorogue anddissolve to two Houses.• He had given the right to address the members of thetwo Houses.
• G. G was given the powers to extent laws which heconsidered essential for the safety and interests ofBritish India, if either Houses refused or failed to passthem.• In case of emergency he could release ordinance for thepeace and quite government of British India.• Governor General had veto power and it was exercised onmany times.• The Crown had the power to disallowing any Act made bythe Indian legislation or the Governor General.
Powers of the membersThe members of both the Houses they could ask questionsand supplementary questions, moving resolutions and ofintroducing projects of legislature according to rules.The members were given the right of freedom of speech inthe two Houses.
• The Act provided for two lists of Subjects:Central List and Provincial listCentral list Provincial listDefense Local-Self GovernmentsPosts and Telegraphs Public Health and SanitationPatents and copyright EducationCurrency and Coinage Public WorksCommunication Water supply and IrrigationCommerce and shipping Land revenue administrationCivil and criminal law and procedure Famine reliefAgricultureCooperative SocietiesLaw and order
Provincial Legislative CouncilsProvincial 70% of the members of the Provincial Legislatureswere elected, about 30 % of the were nominated by theGovernor.Some of the nominated members were official and otherswere non-officials.The life time of the Council was three years but it could bedissolved earlier by the Governor who could also extendits life.Members were given the right of asking questions andsupplementary questions. They could reject the Budgetbut the Governor was authorized to restore it the samewas considered to be necessary.
Transferred and Reserved Subjects.Reserved Subjects were administered by the Governorwith help of the Executive Council and the transferredsubjects were dealt with by the Governor with help ofhis ministers.Members of the Executive Council were nominated by theGovernor, the ministers were chosen by the Governorfrom the members of the legislature
Reserved Subjects Transferred SubjectsAdministration of Justice Local self GovernmentPoliceIrrigation and canals Public works , roads, bridges ,municipal roads.Drainage Public heathWater storage and agriculturalloansSanitation and medical administrationFamine reliefControl of new papersBooks and printing pressPrisons and reformatoriesForestsFactory inspectionSettlements of labor disputesIndustrial insurance and housing Development of Industries includingIndustrial ResearchFinance
The system of diarchy was worked in the provinces from1921 to 1937, but experience shows that it did not worksatisfactory many factors were responsible for itsfailure.The division of the department or subjects were notproperly distributed.No cooperation between the two halves of the Provincialadministration. Some times the ministers and ExecutiveCouncils condemned each other in public.The ministers were the representatives of the people,while members of Executive Council belonged to theofficials.
• Non-cooperation between ministers and Executive councilled to so many disturbances in administration.• Generally, Governor backed the members of the ExecutiveCouncil.• Minister was responsible to the Legislative for theadministration of his department.• He could be turned out by the legislature by a vote of no-confidence.
• The position of the permanent service created manydifficulties.• The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal andtransfer of the member of All India Service was underthe control of the Secretary of State for India.• Those All India Service officers also appointed thetransferred departments and did not care for ministers.• Ministers had no power to choose their own subordinates.• Ministers were not in a position to implement their ownviews and plans in the department.
• According to the rules of Executive business, cases inwhich the Minister differed from the opinion of thepermanent Secretary or the Head of the department, hadto submitted Governor for final orders.• Both the Secretary and the Head of the Department hada weekly interview with the Governor and could discussevery thing about his department.• Sometimes the Governor knew more things about the adepartment than the concerned minister.• The department finance in the hands of the members ofthe Executive Council.• All the nation-building department were given to theministers but they were given no money for the same.
• Finance Secretary had no sympathy with the aspirationsof the Indians as represented by ministers.• In certain cases, the finance department refused even toexamine any scheme proposed by ministers.