Government of India Act, 1919
The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms: dyarchy in the provinces, a two-house central legislature and their limits
In one minute
The Government of India Act, 1919 gave Indian ministers a share of power in the provinces for the first time. It split provincial subjects into reserved and transferred ones. This split is called dyarchy.
It also created a central legislature of two houses. Exams ask for dyarchy, the two lists of subjects, the central legislature and the Act's weaknesses.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Short answer (4 to 6 marks)
Legal provision
The Act is 9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 101 (British Parliament). The text of these provisions is on this site's Bare Act page.
- Section 1(1)(d): some provincial subjects are "transferred subjects", administered by the Governor acting with Ministers.
- Section 1(4): provincial subjects other than transferred ones are "reserved subjects".
- Section 3(1): each major province is governed, for reserved subjects, by a Governor in Council, and for transferred subjects by the Governor acting with Ministers.
- Section 4(3): for transferred subjects the Governor is guided by his Ministers' advice, unless he sees sufficient cause to dissent.
- Section 11(2)(a): the Governor can certify that expenditure on a reserved subject is essential, which overrides a vote against it.
- Sections 17 to 19: the Indian legislature consists of the Governor-General and two Chambers, the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly.
- Section 23(1)(c): rules fix who may vote and how constituencies are formed, including communal electorates.
Meaning and definition
The Government of India Act, 1919 was the law that carried out the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. On 20 August 1917, the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, spoke in the House of Commons. He said British policy aimed at the gradual development of self-governing institutions. Its goal was the progressive realisation of responsible government (government answerable to an elected legislature). Montagu and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, published a report in July 1918. The Act followed in 1919.
Its central device was dyarchy (double government) in the provinces.
- Provincial subjects (section 1(4))
- Reserved subjectsGovernor in Council; not answerable to the provincial legislature. For example, police and justice.
- Transferred subjectsGovernor with Ministers answerable to the elected legislature. For example, education and health.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: dyarchy in the provinces
The Governor in Council ran the reserved subjects. Ministers chosen from the elected members of the provincial legislature ran the transferred subjects. Ministers answered to the legislature, which could remove them. The Governor in Council did not answer to it.
Example. In the Madras Presidency, a Minister for Education wanted new schools. He had the legal charge of education, a transferred subject. But finance stayed with the Governor's side. If that side did not release funds, the Minister could not carry out his plan.
Step 2: the Governor's controls
Even over transferred subjects, the Governor was guided by the Ministers' advice unless he saw sufficient cause to differ (section 4(3)). On reserved subjects he could certify expenditure as essential (section 11(2)(a)). These powers kept real control in his hands.
Step 3: the central legislature
The Act made the central legislature bicameral for the first time. The Council of State had no more than sixty members, of whom not more than twenty were official (section 18(1)). The Legislative Assembly had 140 members: 100 elected and 40 not elected, of whom 26 were officials (section 19). Both houses had elected members. But the Governor-General held the executive power and was not responsible to the legislature.
Step 4: electorates and the vote
The right to vote was limited by property and other qualifications fixed in rules (section 23(1)(c)). Separate electorates, begun for Muslims in 1909, were extended to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans. The Constitution later replaced them with one general roll (Article 325) and adult suffrage (Article 326).
Step 5: money and review
Central and provincial budgets were separated. The Act also provided for a statutory commission to review its working after ten years. The Simon Commission was appointed in 1927 and had no Indian member. Indians protested against it.
Step 6: why it failed to satisfy
- Responsibility was split from power. Ministers answered for subjects without the money or the police.
- The Governor could override Ministers.
- No responsibility at the Centre: the Governor-General's Executive was not answerable to the legislature.
- The voters were few, and separate electorates divided them by community.
Don't confuse: reserved and transferred subjects
| Point | Reserved subjects | Transferred subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Administered by | Governor in Council | Governor with Ministers |
| Answerable to | Not to the provincial legislature | The elected provincial legislature |
| Examples | Police, justice | Education, health, local self-government |
Inside the concept. A district magistrate asks for more police in a riot-hit town. The decision belongs to the reserved side, under the Governor in Council.
Just outside it. A municipality asks to open a primary school. The decision belongs to the Minister, a transferred subject.
Common mistakes
- Saying dyarchy was at the Centre. The 1919 Act applied it in the provinces only.
- Saying Ministers ran all provincial subjects. They ran only the transferred ones.
- Forgetting that the central legislature became two-house in 1919 and that its Executive was still not responsible to it.
- Calling the Simon Commission an Indian body. It had no Indian member.
Apply it
Problem
A Minister for Health in a province wants to build a hospital, but the Governor refuses the funds and says finance is a reserved matter. Can the Minister insist?
Issue. Who decides when the Governor's reserved side withholds funds for a transferred subject?
Rule. Transferred subjects are run by the Governor with Ministers, and the Governor is guided by the Ministers unless he sees sufficient cause to dissent (section 4(3)). Reserved subjects stay under the Governor in Council.
Application. The Minister controls the subject but not the finance. The Governor can dissent for sufficient cause.
Conclusion. The Minister cannot insist. This mismatch was the main weakness of dyarchy.
Leading case laws
No Indian case turns on this Act. It is read as constitutional history, and the Constitution replaced its scheme.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- Background: Montagu declaration, 20 August 1917.
- Dyarchy: reserved and transferred subjects.
- The two-house central legislature.
- One weakness.
10-mark answer
- Background and the goal of responsible government.
- Dyarchy, with the two lists and examples.
- The Governor's controls: sections 4(3) and 11(2)(a).
- Central legislature and its numbers.
- Electorates and the review clause.
- Defects of the Act.
- Link to the 1935 Act.
Key points to remember
- Montagu declaration: 20 August 1917; report of July 1918.
- Dyarchy in the provinces: reserved subjects (Governor in Council), transferred subjects (Governor with Ministers).
- Central legislature: Council of State and Legislative Assembly.
- Separate electorates extended to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans.
- Review after ten years: the Simon Commission, 1927, with no Indian member.
- Defect: responsibility without power.
Quick self-test
1. What is dyarchy under the 1919 Act?
A double system in the provinces: the Governor in Council ran reserved subjects, and the Governor with Ministers ran transferred subjects.
2. Name the two houses of the central legislature.
The Council of State and the Legislative Assembly (section 17).
3. Why was the Simon Commission opposed?
It was appointed under the Act's review plan, but none of its members was Indian.