As this portion of the Act dealing with the Federation was never actually brought into operation, we need not discuss it in detail and will only briefly describe its provisions. The Act provided for a ” Federal Executive ” of a diarchical nature consisting of two parts. One of these, in charge of “transferred departments”, was to be responsible to the Legislature; and the other, dealing with specifically reserved departments like Foreign Affairs, Defence, etc., was to remain under the sole charge of the Governor- General who was in these matters responsible only to the British Parliament. Even in those subjects, which were to be handed over to the Ministers, the Governor- General was given special powers and responsibilities, and discretion to act on his own authority.
The Federal Legislature was to be a bicameral body consisting of a “Lower Chamber” known as the House of Assembly or the Federal Assembly and an “Upper Chamber “, known as the Council of State. The Lower Chamber was to consist of 250 representatives of British India and not more than 125 of the Indian States. The members of the Federal Assembly were to be elected not by popular constituencies, but by the legislative Assemblies of the Provinces. Even in this indirect form of election, the General (Hindu), Muslim and Sikh seats were to be filled by the representatives of these communities in the Provincial Assemblies, voting separately for a prescribed number of seats for each community. The Council of State, or the Upper Chamber, was to consist of 156 members for British India and not more than 104 for the federating States. The State members were to be appointed by their respective rulers. Of the members for British India, six were to be nominated by the Governor- General so as to secure the due representation of the minority communities, depressed classes, and women, and the rest were to be directly, in a few cases indirectly, elected on a high franchise by communal electorates. The tenure of life of the Federal Assembly was to be for five years, but the Governor- General could dissolve it earlier at his discretion. The Council of State was to be a permanent body not subject to dissolution. The term of each member was not to exceed nine years, and one-third of the total number of members were to retire every three years. Barring some minor details, both the Chambers were to have co-ordinate powers in almost all respects, even in financial matters.
The character and shape of the Provincial Government were changed considerably by the Act of 1935. It made provision for redistribution of the Provinces, and two new Provinces were created–Sind, separated from the Bombay Presidency, and Orissa, comprising a portion of the territory of the old Province of Bihar and Orissa, part of the Central Provinces, and certain areas of the Madras Presidency, inhabited by the Oriyas. Burma was separated from British India, and Aden also ceased to be a part of India. In all, there were no eleven Governors’ Provinces and six Chief Commissioners’ Provinces. The Chief Commissioners’ Provinces were administered by the Governor- General through a Chief Commissioner appointed by him according to his discretion.
In the Governors’ Provinces, diarchy was abolished and Provincial Autonomy introduced. The Act vested the executive authority of a Province in the Governor himself as the representative of the Crown. He was provided with a Council of Ministers to aid and advise him in the discharge of the functions conferred on him by the Act, in the entire sphere of provincial government, except in certain matters like law and order, etc., for which he had special responsibilities and which were in his sole discretion. The Ministers were to be appointed by the Governor normally from amongst the members of the local Legislature and were to be responsible to it. In constituting the Ministry, the Governor was to pay due regard to the interests of minorities. The salaries of the Ministers would not vary during their term of office.
The Provincial Legislature consisted of the Governor as His Majesty’s Representative, and one or two chambers. Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and Assam, had each two chambers known as the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly; the rest of the Provinces the Punjab, the Central Provinces and Berar, the North-West Frontier Province, Orissa and Sind, had each a single chamber known as the Legislative Assembly. The strength of the Legislative Assembly, or the lower chamber, varied from 50 to 250 members, all elected; and it was to sit for five years, though it might be dissolved earlier by the Governor. The electorate in every Province for choosing representatives of the Legislature was formed on the basis of communities and interests, according to the terms of the Communal Award of 4th August, 1932, as modified by the Poona Pact of 25th September, 1932. Besides representatives of special electorates, certain seats out of the general ones were reserved for the ” scheduled castes”, that is, the so-called depressed classes. About 10 per cent of the total population of India was enfranchised by this Act, and women were given a wider franchise than was provided by the Act of 1919. The Legislative Council, or the upper chamber, was a permanent body not subject to dissolution, but as near as might be one-third of its members were to retire every third year. It was formed on the same communal basis of the Legislative Assembly. The powers of the two Chambers were co-ordinate, except in the matter of voting certain grants to the Government and introducing financial bills, which were within the purview of the Legislative Assembly. If there were a difference of opinion between the two Chambers in regard to a Bill, the Governor had the power to convoke a joint session of the two Chambers and to form a decision according to the opinion of the majority of members of the joint meeting.
The Governor was invested with some extraordinary powers. Under certain conditions, he could refine his assent to Bills passed by the Legislature. He had the power to promulgate ordinances if, when the Legislature was not in session, he thought that circumstances rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action, and also to issue ordinances at any time with regard to certain subjects. These ordinances had the same force and effect as an Act of the Provincial Legislature during the prescribed period. Further, under certain conditions, the Governor could issue permanent Acts, known as Governor’s Acts, either forthwith or after consulting the Legisilature, if it so pleased him. Again, in case of the failure of the constitutional machinery, the Governor might by proclamation ” declare that his functions shall, to such extent as may be specified in the Proclamation, be exercised by him in his discretion”. Governors exercised these powers under the direction and control of the Governor- General and the British Parliament. Thus though the Act of 1935 had given autonomy to the Provinces in a large sphere of public administration, the special powers of the Governor were regarded as limitations on real responsible government. The constitutional provisions regarding the Provincial Government came into force on Ist April, 1937. In July, 1937, the Congress formed Ministries in the majority of the Governors’ Provinces and remained in office till the closing months of 1939.
The Indian States
The constitutional problem of India continued to be very much complicated by the existence of the States as an outstanding feature in Indian political life. British paramountcy over the States was clearly asserted by Lord Curzon, Lord Minto (II) and Lord Hardinge (II), though in view of the disturbed political situation in India after the Bengal Partition agitation and the difficulties of the 1914-1918 War respectively, Lord Hardinge (II) and Lord Hardinge (II) adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards the States and tried to secure greater co-operation from them. When investing the Maharaja of Jodhpur with ruling powers on 26th February, 1916, Lord Hardinge (II) described the Indian princes as ” helpers and colleagues in the great task of imperial rule.”
Later this policy was manifested in two ways. One was the development of the Imperial Service Troops (maintained by the States and trained by British officers), which had their beginnings in the days of Lord Dufferin (1884–1888) and rendered valuable services to the cause of the British Empire, especially during the First World War. The other was the growth of a consultative body composed of representatives of different states. Attempts to constitute such a body had been made before by Lord Lytton, Lord Curzon, Lord Minto (II) and Lord Hardinge (II) and its importance was further realised by Lord Chelmsford after the First World War. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report made a definite recommendation for such a body, and accordingly, the Chamber of Princes was set up by the Crown, by a Royal Proclamation on 8th February, 1921. The Chamber of Princes was a consultative and not an executive body, consisting of representatives of different classes of States, with the Viceroy as its President and a Chancellor and a Pro-Chancellor elected annually from among the members. The Viceroy could consult its Standing Committee freely in matters relating to the territories of the Indian States generally on those problems which concerned British India and the States in common. The Chamber, however, could not deal with the internal affairs of Indian States or their rulers, or their relations with the Crown, or interfere in any way with the existing rights or engagements of the States or restrict their freedom of action.
At the same time, the growth of paramountcy and the right claimed to interfere in the internal affairs of the States were not to the liking of the rulers of the States, who became more touchy on this point owing to the gradual Indianisation of the Government of India. They also began to demand a share in the formulation of the tariff policy and the collection of the customs revenue. So in December, 1927, the Secretary of State appointed the Indian States Committee, popularly known as the Butler Committee, after the name of its Chairman, Sir Harcourt Butler, to investigate the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States and to make recommendations for the adjustment of economic and financial relations between British India and the Indian States. The Committee reported early in 1929 and along with several recommendations recorded its strong opinion ” that, in view of the historical nature of the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Princes, the latter should not be transferred without their own agreement to a relationship with a new Government in India responsible to an Indian legislature “. The recommendations of the Committee were criticised on the ground that they were not in consonance with the spirit of the times and did not make the relation between the two halves of India ” harmonious and satisfactory “.
But sober opinion on both sides soon realised the necessity of a closer association between the Indian States and British India in a federation, as both were intimately interrelated in various ways. The Nehru Committee in 1928 and the Indian Statutory Commission emphasised this point. We have already noted how the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for the accession of the States to the proposed Federation.