DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

ACADEMIC SESSION: 2014-15

HISTORY III : FINAL DRAFT

‘Analysis of the Chief Provisions of the Indian Councils Act of 1909’

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3

BACKDROP .............................................................................................................................. 4

CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT........................................................................................ 7

Expansion of legislatures: ...................................................................................................... 7

Expansion of Executive Councils: ......................................................................................... 7

Creation of Executive Councils: ............................................................................................ 7

Discussion and Interpellation: ................................................................................................ 8

IMPORTANCE OF THE MORLEY MINTO REFORMS ..................................................... 11

FAILURE OF MINTO-MORLEY COUNCILS ..................................................................... 12

CRITICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 14

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 18

2
 INTRODUCTION

“If I were attempted to set up a parliamentary system in India, or if it could be said that this
chapter of reforms led directly or necessarily up to the establishment of a parliamentary
system in India, I, for one would have nothing to do with it.”

-Mr. Morley, Secretary of State for India

The Indian Councils Act 1909 commonly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, was an
Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the
involvement of Indians in the governance of British India.

John Morley, the Liberal Secretary of State for India, and the Conservative Governor-General
of India, and Earl of Minto produced the Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley-Minto
reforms), these reforms did not go any significant distance towards meeting the Indian
National Congress demand for ‘the system of government obtaining in Self-Governing
British Colonies.’1

In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the
locals were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of
correspondences started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of India. A
committee was appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of reforms. The
committee submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and Lord Morley, the
Act of 1909 was passed by the British Parliament.

The Act of 1909 has its own significance in the Constitutional History of India. By this Act,
Indians were not only associated with the work of legislation but they were allowed to
participate in the administration of the country. The Act increased the strength of the
Councils and also enhanced their powers. The Act by introducing a separate electorate,
narrow franchise and indirect election heralded a new era in the Indian political life.

1
A. C. Kapoor, “Constitutional History of India”, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1 st edn., 1997, pp. 63-
64.

3
 BACKDROP

During the late 19th century British-educated Indians began to demand a role in their
government, which later developed into the independence movement. In 1885, the Indian
National Congress was founded. Most of its members were high caste Hindus. The Congress
met annually to promote the goal of greater participation of Indians in government. By the
early 20th century a radical wing had developed in the Congress that was not content with the
slow pace of reform. They were energized by the partition of the huge province of Bengal
into two in 1905: East Bengal (including Assam) with a Muslim majority, and West Bengal
(including Bihar and Orissa) with a Hindu majority. A storm of protest against the partition
ensued and included an economic boycott of British goods and acts of terrorism. The
Congress was split over this issue, and a radical wing split off to form the New Party. The
new viceroy, Lord Minto (1845–1914), on the one hand acted to repress the unrest, while on
the other he worked to enact reforms with the Secretary of state for India of the newly elected
Liberal government in Great Britain, John (later Lord) Morley (1838–1923).

The partition of Bengal was a catalyst for Muslim political consciousness. Since the decline
and fall of the Muslim Mughal dynasty, Indian Muslims had fallen behind Hindus in attaining
modern education and adjusting to new conditions. Unlike Hindus, Indian Muslims were
encouraged by the formation of East Bengal. Realizing that constitutional reforms were in the
works and that they would be a minority in a representative government, Western-educated
Muslims led by Aga Khan organized the All-India Muslim League in 1905 and lobbied Minto
for a “fair share” for the Muslim community in any representative system. Like the Congress,
the league also met in annual conventions to formulate goals.2

The Act of 1892 did not fulfil the aspirations of the people of India. The Constitution and
functions of the Legislative Council disappointed the Indians. Moreover, only four years after
the passing of the Councils Act of 1892, India had to face many sufferings. Plague broke out
in the country, which was followed by famine. Famine was followed by bubonic Plague in
the Bombay Presidency. The measures adopted by the Government were vigorous but the
way they were implemented, was not appealing to the masses. Some international events in
this context also need mention. Victory of Abyssinia over Italy in 1896, and of Japan over
Russia in 1905, clearly indicated that the dawn of new era for the whole Asia was about to

2
http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/history/the-making-of-india-councils-act-of-1909-morley-
minto-reforms.html [last accessed on: 14/10/2014].

4
come. Indians in South Africa, Fizi and Canada were meted with the most humiliating
treatment. The imposition, of three pound Toll Tax on Indian labourers in Natal if they
overstayed, and prohibitions on Indians in Transval to have lands in their own names, added
fuel to the fire. In 1888, the Indians of Orange River Colony were expelled and were
subjected to intolerable discrimination. Gandhiji launched Satyagraha against the Act, in
South Africa that Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak said at that time, ‘A good foreign Government
was redesirable than an inferior national Government.’ The whole atmosphere of India was
filled with the opposition to the British Government. The economic condition of the country
further deteriorated in the beginning of the 20th century. The leaders of the country criticised
the economic policy of the government. Press and platforms played an important role in the
development of the national movement. The violent crusade launched by the Extremists
against the British imperialism compelled the government to introduce substantial reforms.3

In 1905, the Liberal Government was formed in England and Mr. Morley became the
Secretary of State for India. This government was very liberal towards the Indians. In 1906,
Lord Minto in a minute reviewing of the political situation in India pointed out how the
growth of education encouraged by the British rule had led to the rise of important classes
claiming equality of citizenship, and aspiring to take a larger part in shaping the policy of the
government, and appointed a Committee of his Executive Council to consider and report on
the general question of constitutional reforms. In England, in the same year, a Liberal
Government came into power in face of what the Secretary of State for India describe as
“enormous difficulties” and for the next two years there were “heavy and black clouds over
the Indian horizon.”4 India attracted attention in the House of Commons, in far excess of
what she had hitherto done. In spite of sedition and political unrest, Lord Minto’s
Government persisted in the policy of reform and in the Home Department Letter of the
August 24th, 1907, they put forward certain tentative proposals, inviting the Local
Governments to submit their opinions after consulting representatives of the various classes
in the country. As a direct result of these deliberations, a despatch on reforms was addressed
by the Government of India to the Secretary of State on the October 1st, 1908, and a reply
discussing the proposed reforms was sent by Lord Morley to the Governor-General in
Council on the November 27th, 1908. On December 17th, 1908, Viscount Morley of
Blackburn made in Parliament his promised statement on the proposed reforms which he

3
R. C. Agarwal, “Constitutional Development and National Movement of India”, S. Chand & Company Ltd.,
New Delhi, 13th edn., 2005, p. 167.
4
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, CLXXXIII, p.412.

5
described as “the opening of a very important chapter in the history of the relations of Great
Britain and India” and “the turning over of a fresh leaf in the history of British responsibility
to India.”5 Viscount Morley summarised the reforms proposed under seven heads, viz., to
increase the number of members of both Viceregal and Provincial Councils; to sanction
election alongside of nomination; to repeal the prohibition contained in the Indian Councils
Act, 1892, against resolution or division in Council in financial discussions; to invest
Legislative Councils with power to discuss matters of public and general importance, and to
pass recommendations to the Government; to extend the power to appoint a member on the
Council to preside; to increase the number of ordinary members of the Executive Councils of
Bombay and Madras; and to sanction the powers for creation of Executive Councils for
Lieutenant-Governors and to define the Lieutenant-Governor’s power to overrule his
Executive Council. The Government of India proposed to reduce official majority in
Provincial Councils to the narrowest limits by making number of officials (excluding the
Head of Government) & non-officials equal. In regard to Viceroy’s Legislative Council, it
was proposed to rely on public spirit of non-official members and to dispense, with official
majority “on all ordinary occasions.” The Secretary of State while agreeing to dispense with
official majority in Provincial Councils decided to retain it in the Council of the Governor-
General. Another of the reforms proposed for which, however, no sanction of Parliament was
required, was to appoint one Indian member on each of the Executive Councils of the
Governor-General and Governors of Bombay and Madras, for such an absence could “no
longer be defended” and the advance was justified by reason of enormous success which
attended the appointment of two Indians to the Council of India.

5
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, CXCVIII, p.1974.

6
 CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

The Act made the following provisions:

Expansion of legislatures: The additional members of the Legislative Councils at the Centre
and in Madras and Bombay, and the members of the Legislative Councils of the lieutenant-
Governors of Provinces instead of being all nominated according to the Acts of 1861 and
1892 would include members so nominated and also members elected according to
regulations to be made under the present Act. References in the former Acts to the members
so nominated and their nomination would be construed as including references to the
members so elected and their election. The maximum number of Additional Members for
each Legislative Council was laid down, but the actual number, quorum, term of office, etc.,
were left to be determined by rules. The maximum fixed for the Legislative Council of the
Governor-General was 60; for Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, and Eastern
Bengal and Assam 50; and for the Punjab and Burma 30. The Governor-General-in-Council
was, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State-in-Council, empowered to make
regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in India
might be nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils as to the qualifications
for being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such Council, as to any other
matter, and also as to the manner in which those regulations were to be carried into effect.
Regulations were not subject to alteration or amendment by the Central Legislature.6

Expansion of Executive Councils: Members of the Executive Councils of Madras and

Bombay were not to exceed four in number, as directed from time to time by the Secretary of
State in Council, and of these two at least were to be persons who at the time of their
appointment had been in the service of the Crown in India for not less than twelve years.7 In a
case of equality of votes at a meeting of the Council, the President was to have two votes or
the casting vote.

Creation of Executive Councils: The Governor-General in Council could with the approval
of the Secretary of State-in-Council, create, by proclamation, a Executive Council for the
Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William, make

6
J. K. Mittal, “Indian Legal and Constitutional History”, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Fourteenth
Edition, 2004, p. 255.
7
The previous maximum number was three and service qualification was necessary in every case. The Chief
Commanders of Madras and Bombay armies were appointed extraordinary members of the Councils until the
Presidency commands were abolished in 1893.

7
provisions for determining the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of the
members of the Council, for appointment of temporary or acting members and for the
procedure to be adopted in case of difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and
his Council, equality of votes and the absence of a Lieutenant-Governor from his Council.

In the same way the Governor-General-in-Council could create an Executive Council in any
other Province under a Lieutenant-Governor. But a draft of the proclamation before
promulgation was to be laid before each House of the Parliament. In case the proclamation
was made with respect to any province, the Lieutenant-Governor might, with the consent of
the Governor-General-in-Council, make rules and orders for the more convenient transaction
of business in his Council. Any order made or act done according to the rules and orders so
made was to be deemed to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Every
member of any such Council was to be appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval
of His Majesty and was, as such, to be a member of the Legislative Council of the
Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of this Act.

The Governor-General and the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the Lieutenant-
Governor of every Province respectively, would appoint a member of their respective
Councils to be its Vice-President.

Discussion and Interpellation: Power was given to the Governor-General in Council and
Local Governments to make rules authorising, at any meetings of their respective Legislative
Councils, the discussion of Annual Financial Statement and of any matter of general public
interest, and the asking of questions. Such rules if made by the Governor-General in Council
required the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, and when made by a Local
Government required the sanction of the Governor-General in Council and were not liable to
alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council concerned. The Governor-General in
Council was further empowered to make regulations, with the approval of the Secretary of
State in Council, as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons were to be
nominated or elected members of the Legislative Councils.8 The aforesaid rules might
provide for the appointment of a member of any such Council to preside at any such
discussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, as the
case might be, and any Vice-President.

8
Prof. C. L. Anand, “Constitutional Law and History of Government of India”, Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Eighth edn., 2008, p.133.

8
The Finance Member was every year to present to the Legislative Council the Financial
Statement, i.e., the preliminary financial estimates of the Government of India for the
financial year next following, together with an explanatory memorandum.

On the day fixed for discussion, any member could move a resolution relating to alteration in
taxation, etc., of which he had given notice in writing to the Secretary at least two clear-days
before the commencement of the stage of the discussion to which the resolution related. A
resolution was to take the form of a specific recommendation addressed to the Governor-
General in Council, and the President could disallow any resolution or part of a resolution
without giving any reason therefore other than that in his opinion it could not be moved
consistently with the public interests or that it should be moved in the Legislative Council of
a Local Government.

A resolution, if carried by the majority of votes, was to take effect only as a recommendation
to the government. This was to be followed by the presentation of the Financial Statement as
finally settled by the Governor-General in Council and on this occasion, the Finance Member
was to explain why any of the resolutions passed by the Council had not been accepted.
Certain heads of revenue were not open to discussion, such as stamps, customs, tributes from
native states, army, marine, military works, etc. Certain heads of expenditure also were
similarly excluded, such as interest on debt, ecclesiastical charges, special defences, state
railways, political pensions, etc.

By the Regulations made under the Act, the Additional Members of the Legislative Council
of the Governor-General were ordinarily to be sixty in number, of whom not less than 25
were to be elected and not more than 35 nominated. The form in which the elective principle
was embodied was representation of classes and interests, instead of by territorial
constituencies. Mohammedans were given the right to elect their representatives in communal
constituencies. The nominated members were to consist of officials and non-officials, of
whom the former were not to be more than 28 and the latter not so may as would make the
majority of the Council non-official.

There were four classes of electorates, viz., the Provincial Legislative Councils, and the
District Councils and Municipal Committees of the Central Provinces; the landholders of
Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihar and Orissa, and Central
Provinces; the Mohammedan community of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, and
Bihar and Orissa; and the Chambers of Commerce of Bengal and Bombay. The seats

9
assigned to these electorates were 13 in the first case, 7 in the second, 5 in the third and 2 in
the fourth.

The Act gave special representation to landholders, and set apart some seats to be filled
exclusively by Muslims as it was thought that territorial electorates had signally failed to
secure adequate representation of these classes. Of the non-official members elected to the
Imperial Council since 1893, 45 percent belonged to the professional middle class, the
landholders obtained 25 percent of the seats, the Mohammedans 12 percent and Indian
mercantile community, nil.

Mohammedans were given 2 communal constituencies in Madras, 4 in Bombay, 5 in Bengal,

4 in United Provinces, 2 in Assam, and 4 in Bihar and Orissa. The usual constituencies were
Municipalities, District Boards, Universities, Landholders, and special interests such as
Chambers of Commerce.

10
 IMPORTANCE OF THE MORLEY MINTO REFORMS

The Morley Minto reforms effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various
legislative councils in India for the first time. Previously some Indians had been appointed to
legislative councils. The majorities of the councils remained British government
appointments. Moreover the electorate was limited to specific classes of Indian nationals. The
introduction of the electoral principle laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system even
though this was contrary to the intent of Morley. As stated by Burke and Quraishi-

“To Lord Curzon's apprehension that the new Councils could become 'parliamentary
bodies in miniature', Morley vehemently replied that, 'if it could be said that this chapter of
reforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I for
one would have nothing at all to do with it'. But he had already confessed in a letter to Minto
in June 1906 that while it was inconceivable to adapt English political institutions to the
'nations who inhabit India...the spirit of English institutions is a different thing and it is a
thing that we cannot escape, even if we wished...because the British constituencies are the
masters, and they will assuredly insist... all parties alike... on the spirit of their own political
system being applied to India.' He never got down to explaining how the spirit of the British
system of government could be achieved without its body.”

Muslims had expressed serious concern that a ‘first past the post’ British type of electoral
system would leave them permanently subject to Hindu majority rule. The Act of 1909
stipulated, as demanded by the Muslim leadership that Indian Muslims be allotted reserved
seats in the Municipal and District Boards, in the Provincial Councils and in the Imperial
Legislature; that the number of reserved seats be in excess of their relative population (25
percent of the Indian population); and, that only Muslims should vote for candidates for the
Muslim seats ('separate electorates').

These concessions were a constant source of strife 1909-47. British statesmen generally
considered reserved seats as regrettable in that they encouraged communal extremism as
Muslim candidates did not have to appeal for Hindu votes and vice versa. As further power
was shifted from the British to Indian politicians in 1919, 1935 and after, Muslims were ever
more determined to hold on to, and if possible expand, reserved seats and their weightage.
However, Hindu politicians repeatedly tried to eliminate reserved seats as they considered

11
them to be undemocratic and to hinder the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian
national feeling.

In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the
locals were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of
correspondences started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of India. A
committee was appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of reforms. The
committee submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and Lord Morley, the
Act of 1909 was passed by the British parliament.

FAILURE OF MINTO-MORLEY COUNCILS

The Minto-Morley Councils, inspite of the enthusiasm which they originally evoked, failed to
satisfy the aspirations of the people. They were in no sense representative bodies. The
franchise was restricted and the system of election was indirect. The largest constituency
representing sectional interests which returned a member to the Indian Legislative Council by
direct election was composed of 650 voters, while in the nine general constituencies
representing non-official members of the Provincial Legislatures the average number of
voters was twenty-two and in one, the number was nine only. For the Provincial Councils, the
constituencies were larger but even here in no case the electorate exceeded a few hundred
persons. Except in the case of some special class constituencies, there was no real connection
between the primary voter and the man who sat in the Council. Elections to the Provincial
Legislative Councils were indirect and to the Indian Legislature doubly indirect.

The Minto-Morley Councils continued the official bloc which gave unreal and farcical
character to their proceedings. The official members were not expected to ask questions or
move resolutions and when a division took place they always voted by order in support of the
Government. The system was in effect, frankly irritating and as the official members were
generally European it occasionally gave racial complexion to the debate. The popular
representatives and the official members were arrayed in opposing camps. The elected
members being in minority the decision was often known beforehand with the result that
debates lacked enthusiasm except when feelings were aroused.

The Minto-Morley reforms did not recognise the principle of responsibility or popular
control. They embodied no new policy and were based on the fundamental principle that

12
executive government should retain the authority to pronounce final decision on all questions.
This left the Councils with no function but criticism and the very limited opportunities which
they afforded were insufficient to satisfy the growing national consciousness of educated
Indians.

Some of the antecedent conditions of success of the reformed Councils were lacking. “There
was no general advance in local bodies; no real setting free of the provincial finance; and
inspite of some progress no widespread admission of Indians in greater numbers into the
public services. Because the relaxation of parliamentary control had not been contemplated
the Government of India could not relax their control over local governments. The sphere in
which the Councils could affect the Government’s action, both in respect of finance and
administration was, therefore, closely circumscribed. Again and again, a local government
could only meet a resolution by saying that the matter was really out of its hands.”9

The underlying idea of the Minto-Morley changes was to “really and effectively associate the
people of India in the work not only of occasional legislation, but of actual everyday
administration.” With this end in view, a Royal Commission on Decentralisation was
appointed in Lord Minto’s time which presented its report in 1909 recommending a series of
measures for the purpose of relaxation of control by higher authorities and the simplification
of administrative methods. As a result of the Commission’s proposals, between the years
1910 and 1917, the control of the Government of India over the Provincial Governments was
relaxed in a multitude of details and something was done to free local bodies from official
interference.10

9
Report on Constituional Reforms, 1918, p.65.
10
Supranote 7.

13
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The reforms under the Indian Councils Act of 1909 were essentially of an evolutionary
character; they were a natural extension of the previously existing system. Excessive claims
were made for them in the enthusiasm of the moment, but in any case they could not justly be
described as embodying any new policy. The change was one of degree and not of kind. Lord
Morley himself repudiated the idea that the measures were in any sense a step towards
Parliamentary Government. Nevertheless, it failed to satisfy political aspirations of the people
of India. Under the Act, Muslims got separate electorates and yet their right to vote in the
joint electorates was left intact on account of their alleged political importance. This enabled
them to secure an excessive undue representation. What was more egregious was the creation
of franchise. A Muslim to become a voter had to pay income tax on rupees, 3000 per year;
while a non-Muslim on rupees 3,00,000. A Muslim graduate to become a voter was to have
standing of five years as a graduate, while a non-Muslim of 30 years. The creation of separate
electorates was an attempt to set one religion against the other. It was a disintegrating agency
to which sectional interests were made the supreme consideration in the body politic. It was
calculated to retard harmony in the society. Separate electorates were meant to perpetuate
class divisions and were against the democratic spirit.

The Congress was even critical of the special representation of landholders who never
demanded to be treated as a separate class, and also the imposition of restrictions on the
choice of electors in choosing candidates. In the regulations for Bombay, Madras and Bengal
eligibility to a membership of a Provincial Legislature was confined to members of
Municipal and District Boards only. This meant to exclude able and leading persons from the
Legislature. Besides this, the Act did not provide for a non-official majority in the Central
Legislature. As regards the character of non-official majority in Provincial Legislative
Councils, the non-official majority in all of them was composed of both elected and
nominated members which, as the Councils were constituted, meant a standing and, in fact,
an overwhelming official majority in each one of them. The members returned were in a
minority as against the official and nominated members combined. Thus, the British
government gave an illusory official majority instead of a genuine one.

The regulations gave an extremely limited franchise, and except in the cases of Muslim
landlords, the representation of the middle classes was secured by indirect election. Instead,

14
there should have been direct election. Also, certain parts of British India, like the North-
Western Frontier Provinces, Coorg and Ajmer Merwara, went unrepresented.

The Montague-Chelmsford report dealt, in detail with the Morley-Minto reforms. It said that
their underlying idea was to associate the people to a greater extent with the Government in
the decision of public questions. “It was thought impossible to introduce a general system of
direct election with territorial constituencies; and indirect election was accordingly retained,
except in the case of Muslims and certain other special electorates.” The reforms “admitted
the need for increased representation, while reiterating the impossibility of basing it generally
on a direct or general franchise. They admitted the desirability of generally securing non-
official approval to the Government legislation, though they trusted in an emergency to the
support of nominated members, to the division of interests between different classes of
elected members, and in the last resort to overriding legislation in the Indian Legislative
Council where an official majority was retained. Frankly abandoning the old conception of
the Councils as a mere legislative committee of the Government, they did much to make them
serve the purpose of an inquest into the doings of Government, by conceding the very
important rights of discussing administrative matters and of cross-examining Government on
its replies to questions.”

But the reforms of 1909 “afforded no answer, and could afford no answer, to Indian political
problems. Narrow franchises and indirect elections failed to encourage in members a sense of
responsibility to the people generally and made it impossible, except in special
constituencies, for those who had votes to use them with perception and effect. Moreover, the
responsibility for the administration remained undivided, with the result that while
Governments found themselves far more exposed to questions and criticism than hitherto,
questions and criticism were uninformed by a real sense of responsibility, such as comes
from the prospect of having to assume office in turn. The conception of a responsible
executive, wholly or partially amenable to the elected councils, was not admitted. Power
remained with the Government and the Councils were left with no functions but criticism.

The electoral system suffered from great defects. The franchise was extremely restricted, and
there was usually no connection between the supposed primary voter and the man who sat as
his representative. The result of the Minto-Morley scheme was that a very large percentage of
the elected were lawyers securing a predominance of man of one calling which was not in the
interests of the general community. The work of the Councils was not what would have been

15
expected. In the Indian Legislative Council there was very little legislation, largely because
non-official opinion was taken before a Bill was introduced. Hence, the constructive work of
legislation was largely done by correspondence, which must be the case where there was an
official majority, though the influence of that majority was felt more powerfully in the
Council Chamber than in the committee room. The conditions were rather different in the
Provincial Councils, but the tendencies were very similar.

The Morley-Minto constitution “ceased in the brief space of ten years” time to satisfy the
political hunger of India. The new institutions began with good auspices and on both sides
there was a desire to work them in a conciliatory fashion. For a short time after their
inception, the Morley-Minto reforms threatened to diminish the importance of the Indian
National Congress and the Muslim League. It seemed as if the Councils where elected
members took a share in the business of Government must be a more effective instrument for
political purposes than mere self-constituted gatherings.

16
 CONCLUSION

Despite all the drawbacks the act of 1909 suffered from, it was a definite advance on the
preceding Act of 1892. It marked an important stage in the growth of representative
institutions in India. For the first time, recognition was given to elective principle as the basis
of composition of Legislative Councils. Inspite of the disclaimer of Lord Morley, the act did
pave the way for a parliamentary government although indirectly in the country. The elected
Indians in the councils got a platform to ventilate their grievances. It was not less heartening
a fact that an Indian was also included in Governor-General’s Executive Council. The
enlargement of the size of the Legislatures and presence of elected members in it, although by
indirect elections, set the ball rolling of increasing demand for complete Indianisation of
Legislatures.

Still the Act fell far short of the national expectations. What disappointed people the most
was the admixture of the two incompatible elements of constitutionalism and autocracy, of
the nominative and elective principles. Supreme power continued to be vested in the
Executive on the principle that the responsibility to rule over India had developed exclusively
on the British people. Indians were considered ill-fitted for higher posts in the administration.
The local bodies continued to be officialised.

The Act was nothing better than a political game of the Government to inflame communal
passions and crack national solidarity. The Act gave undue importance to vested interests by
giving them special representation. According to the Report on Indian Constitutional
Reforms, 1918, “It was opposed to the teaching of history. It perpetuated division by creeds
and classes which meant the creation of political camps organised against each other and
taught them to think as partisans and not citizens. It stereotyped existing relation and was a
very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle.”

The exclusion of the Indians from senior posts and from public services also pin-pricked the
educated unemployed youths of India. To quote Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, “It (Act of 1909)
was a compromise between bureaucracy and democracy, inevitably a shortlived if, necessary,
experiment.” The reforms thus brought the country to a stage whence there was no going
back, instead the only course open was further advancement towards self-government which
was confirmed by Montague’s August Declaration of 1917.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 Anand Prof. C. L., “Constitutional Law and History of Government of India”,

Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 8th edn., 2008.
 Agarwal R. C., “Constitutional Development and National Movement of India”, S.
Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 13th edn., 2005.
 Mittal J. K., “Indian Legal and Constitutional History”, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad,
14th edn. , 2004.
 Kapoor A. C, “Constitutional History of India”, S. Chand & Company Ltd, New
Delhi, 1st edn., 1997.

MISCELLANEOUS:
 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, CLXXXIII, p.412.
 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, CXCVIII, p.1974.
 Report on Constituional Reforms, 1918, p.65.

ONLINE SOURCES:
 http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/history/the-making-of-india-
councils-act-of-1909-morley-minto-reforms.html

18