Title

Evolution of the system of Public Administration in India from the

period 1858- 1950: a detailed study highlighting the major landmarks in
administrative history made during this period

Abstract
The present study is organised into chapters analyzing the evolution of Indian public
administration, the several acts passed during this period (1858-1950), the main
features of the system introduced by those acts and how they brought about reforms in
the Indian administration.

Keywords
Indian administration, British, history, period 1858-1950, reforms

Contents
Introduction

CHAPTER 1
Government of India Act, 1858

CHAPTER 2
Indian Councils Act of 1861

CHAPTER 3
The Indian Council Act of 1892

CHAPTER 4
Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909

CHAPTER 5
Government of India Act of 1919

CHAPTER 6
Government of India Act, 1935

CHAPTER 7
Indian Independence Act 1947

CHAPTER 8
Important events in the Indian Administrative history are as under

Conclusion

References

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1482528

Introduction
The Indian administrative structure is largely, a legacy of the British rule. The various
structural and functional aspects of Indian Administration like secretariat system , all-
India services , recruitment, training, office procedures, local administration, district
administration, budgeting, auditing, centralising tendency, police administration,
revenue administration, and so on, have their roots in the British rule.
The British rule in India can be divided into two phases- the Company Rule till the
year 1858 and the Crown Rule from 1858-1947.
The year 1858 itself was a year of great event in that the administration of the
Government of India passed into the hands of the British Government from the East
India Company. The administration under the East India Company was unrealistic,
inelastic and static and this has contributed to the collapse of the administration when
it was challenged by the First War of Independence in 1857.
The administration under the British Government was loyal to Britain but the people
of India suffered. The system of public administration passed through various stages
of improvements owing to the sustained efforts of the people until it was completely
Indianised after independence.
The major landmarks which laid down the legal framework for the organisation and
functioning of administration in British India are explained in the following chapters
in a chronological order. The important stages during the period 1858-1950 were as
under:
Government of India Act 1858
Indian Councils Act 1861
Indian Councils Act 1892
Indian Councils Act also known as Morley-Minto Reforms 1909
Government of India Act also known as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms 1919
Government of India Act 1935
Indian Independence Act 1947
Adoption of Indian Constitution 1949

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1482528

CHAPTER 1
Government of India Act, 1858
The British, in the form of East India Company, came to trade but found themselves
in the role and position of a ruler. India was ruled by the company from the 1600-
1858 before the Company was wound up and the governance passed into the hands of
the Crown i.e. the British Government. In the year 1858 when the British Crown
assumed sovereignty over India from East India Company, and Parliament enacted the
first statute for the governance of India under the direct rule of the British
Government,--the Government of India Act,1858. This Act transferred the
government, territories and revenue of India from the East India Company to the
British Crown. In other words the rule of the Company was replaced by the rule of
Crown in India. The powers of the British Crown were to be exercised by the
Secretary of State for India. Thus the Board of Control and Court of Directors were
replaced by this new office. The Secretary of State was a member of the British
Cabinet and was assisted by Council of India, having fifteen members. The Council
was composed exclusively of people from England, some of whom were nominees of
the crown while others were the representatives of the Directors of the East India
Company.
The Government of India Act 1858 is an Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed on August 2, 1858. Its provisions called for the liquidation of the
British East India Company (who had up to this point been ruling India under the
auspices of Parliament) and the transference of its functions to the British Crown.
Lord Palmerstone, then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, introduced a bill for
the transfer of control of the Government of India from the East India Company to the
Crown, referring to the grave defects in the existing system of the government of
India. Main provisions of this Act are:
(a) The Act declared that the Company's territories in India shall vest in Her Majesty,
and the Company shall cease to exercise its power and control over all these
territories. India will be governed in the name of the Queen.
(b) The Queen's Principal Secretary of State shall have all such powers and perform
all such duties as were exercised by the court of Directors. A council of fifteen
members were appointed to assist the Secretary of State for India. The council became
an advisory body in India affairs. For all the communications between England and
India, the Secretary of State became the real channel.
(c) The Secretary of State for India was empowered to send some secret despatches to
India directly without consulting the Council. He was also authorised to constitute
special committees of his Council.
(d) The Crown was empowered to appoint the Governor General of India and the
Governors of the Presidencies.
(e) It also provided for the creation of the Indian Civil Service under the control of the
Secretary of State.
(f) All the property of the East India Company was transferred to the Crown. All
treaties, contracts, etc. made by the Company remained binding on the Crown.
Thus, the passing of the Government of India Act 1858 ushered in a new period of
Indian history – that of direct rule by the British Crown, known as the British Raj.
CHAPTER 2
Indian Councils Act of 1861
The bureaucracy was highly centralised and the Act of 1858 did show a degree of
awareness in remedying it. But, this process was too slow. In 1859, Lord Canning
introduced the “portfolio” system. Under this, the work of the government, divide into
several branches, was entrusted to different members of the Governor-General’s
Council. In the year 1861, the Indian Councils Act of 1861 was passed. This Act
introduced a grain of popular element insofar as it provided that the Governor-
General’s Executive Council, which was so long composed exclusively of officials,
should include certain additional non-official members, while transacting legislative
business as a Legislative Council. But this Legislative Council was neither
representative nor deliberative in any sense. The members were nominated and their
functions were confined exclusively to a consideration of the legislative proposals
placed before it by the Governor-General. It could not, in any manner, criticise the
acts of the administration or the conduct of the authorities. Even in legislation,
effective powers were reserved to the Governor-General, such as-
(a) giving prior sanction to Bills relating to certain matters, without which they
could not be introduced in the Legislative Council;
(b) vetoing the Bills after they were passed or reserving them for consideration of
the Crown;
(c) legislating by Ordinances which were to have the same authority as Acts made
by the Legislative Council.
Similar provisions were made by the Act of 1861 for Legislative Councils in the
Provinces. But even for initiating legislation in these Provincial Councils with respect
to many matters, the prior sanction of the Governor-General was necessary.
The Indian Councils Act of 1861, in the first place added to the Viceroy’s executive
council fifth member who was to be a gentleman of legal profession, a jurist rather
than a technical lawyer. The Act empowered the governor-general to make rules for
more convenient transactions of business in the Council. This power was used by
Lord Canning to introduce the portfolio system in the Government of India. Up to that
time theoretically it was the rules that the government of India was governments by
entire body of the executive council. As a result all the official papers had to be
brought to the notice of the members of the council. By the provisions declared by the
council Act of 1861, Canning divided the government between the members of the
Council. In this way the foundations of the Cabinet government in India were
established. It had been declared through this Act, each branch of administration had
its spokesman and head in the Government, who was responsible for its
administration and defence. Under the new system the daily matters of administration
were placed by the member-in-charge. In cases of important matters, the member
concerned presented the matters before the Governor General and decided in
consultation with him. The decentralization of business undoubtedly made for
efficiency but it was not achieved however. The Indian councils Act of 1861 restored
the legislative powers of making and amending laws to the provinces of Madras and
Bombay. Following the provisions declared by the Councils Act of 1861, legislative
council were established in Bengal, the North Western Provinces and the Punjab in
the years 1862, 1886 and 1889 etc. Moreover the Governor General was empowered
by the Acts of 1861, to issue without the concurrence of the Legislative Council,
ordinances, which were not to remain in force for more than six months. The
significance of the Indians Councils Act of 1861 lies in the fact that it laid down the
gradual construction and consolidation of the mechanical framework of the
government. Due to this Act three separate presidencies were brought into a common
system. The legislative and the administrative authority of the Governor-General-in-
Council, was asserted over all the provinces and extended to all the inhabitants. By
this act the local needs and the growth of the local knowledge were emphasized.
But in no way this Act established representative government in India on the model of
the government prevalent in England. By the Act of 1861, it was declared that in the
colonial Representative Assemblies there would be the discussions of the financial
matters and taxation. Regarding this Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of the state,
while introducing the Bill made it clear in the unequivocal terms that Her Majesty’s
Government had no intentions to establish a representative law makings body
normally. However the Indian council Act of 1861 led widespread public disaffection
and agitation.
CHAPTER 3
The Indian Council Act of 1892
During the later half of the 19th century the current of nationalist spirit began to
emerge in India. Moreover the repressive Acts made by Lord Ripon, the Vernacular
Press Act and the Indian Arms Act in the year 1878, greatly exasperated the feelings
of the Indians. It was under these circumstances the Indian National Congress was
formed in the year 1885. The sole motto of the congress was to organize the public
opinions in India, thereby ventilate their grievances and demand reforms
constitutionally.
In the beginning though the attitudes of the British Governments to the Indian
National Congress was friendly, yet by 1888, that attitudes changed when Lord
Dufferin made a frontal attack on the Congress. Thus Lords Dufferin tried to belittle
the importance of the representative characters of Congress. But he did not understand
the significance of the movement launched by the congress. He secretly sent to
England the proposals for liberalizing the Councils. He also appointed a committee of
his council to prepare plans for the enlargement of the Provincial councils, for
enhancement of their status, the multiplication of their functions, and introduction of
elective principles in the councils and the liberalization of their general character as
political institutions. The report of the Committee was sent to the Home authorities in
England proposing for the changes in the composition and functions of the Councils.
The main aim of the reports was to give the Indian gentlemen wider share in the
administration. The Conservative Ministry in England, introduced in the year 1890 a
bill in the House of Lords on the basis of this proposals. But the measures adopted in
the Bill were preceded very slowly and was passed two years later as the Indian
Councils Act in the year 1892. The Indian council act of 1892, dealt exclusively with
the powers, functions and the compositions of the Legislative councils in India. With
regard to the Central Legislature, the Councils Act of 1892 provided that the number
additional members must not be less than ten or more than sixteen. The increase of the
members of the central Legislature was described as a very paltry and miserable
addition. But Curzon defended it on the ground that the efficiency of the deliberative
body was not necessarily commensurate with the numerical strength. The council Act
of 1892 upheld that two fifth of the total members council were to be non-officials. It
had also been declared that non-officials were partly nominated and partly elected.
The principle of election conceded to a limited extent. The Indian Council Act of
1892 increased the members of the Legislatures. These members were entitled to
express their views upon the financial statements. The statement on the financial
affairs henceforth was decided to be prepared on the Legislature. But these legislative
members were not entitled to move resolutions or divide the houses in respect of any
financial question. These legislative members were empowered to put questions with
certain limits to the government on matters of interest after giving a six days notice.
Regarding the provincial Legislature the Council Act enlarged the number of
additional members to not less than eight or more than twenty in case of Bombay and
Madras. The maximum for Bengal was also fixed at twenty. But for the north-western
province and Oudh, the number was fixed at fifteen. The members of the Provincial
Legislature had to perform several functions. Their Chief function was to secure the
interpellation of the executive in the matters of the general public interest. They could
also discuss the policy of the government and ask questions, which required a
thorough previous notice. Their questions could also be disallowed by the central
government if necessary without assigning any reason.
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 introduced several new rules and regulations.
However the significant feature of this Indian council Act was the procedures of
election it introduced, though the word election was very carefully avoided in it. The
Act envisaged that apart from the elected official members there should be elected
non-official members, whose number was to be five. The non-official members of the
Council were one to be elected by each of the non-official member of the four
Provincial Legislative Councils of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta and the North-
western province and one by the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce. The governor
general nominated the other five non-officials himself. In cases of Provincial
Legislative Councils, the bodies permitted to elect the members of Municipalities,
District Boards, Universities ands the Chamber of commerce. The methods of election
however were not mentioned in the clear terms. The "elected" members were
officially declared as "nominated" although after taking into consideration the
recommendation of each body. These Legislative bodies met in several sessions in
order to prepare recommendations to the governor general or head of the Provincial
Government. The person favoured by the majority was not described as the "elected",
rather they were directly recommended for nomination.
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 was undoubtedly an advance on the Act of 1861.
The Act of 1892 widened the functions of the legislature. The members could ask
questions and thus obtain information, which they desired, from the executive. The
Councils Act of 1892 made it obligatory that the financial accounts of the current year
and the budget for the following year should be presented in the legislature. The
members were permitted to make general observations and on the budget and make
suggestions for increasing or decreasing revenue and expenditure.
Apart from these the recognition of the principle of election introduced by the Acts of
1892, was a measure of constitutional significance. However there were several
defects and shortcomings in the Acts of 1892 by the reason of which the Act failed to
satisfy the Indians nationalists. The Act was criticized at successive sessions of the
Indian National Congress. Critics have opined that the procedure of election was a
roundabout one. This was so because though theoretically the process of election was
followed, in actuality these local bodies were the nominated members. Moreover the
function of the legislative councils was strictly circumscribed. In conclusion it can be
said that despite the fact that the Indian councils Act of 1892 fell far short of the
demands made by the Indian National Congress, yet it was undoubtedly a great
advance on the existing state of things.
CHAPTER 4
Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909
To placate the moderate nationalists, British government announced constitutional
concessions through the Indian Councils Act 1909 which are also known as Morley-
Minto Reforms of 1909. They took their name after their official sponsors, Lord
Minto the Governor-General and John Morley, Secretary of State for India.
In 1908, the British Parliament appointed a Royal Commission on Decentralisation to
inquire into relations between the Government of India and the provinces and suggest
ways and means to simplify and improve them. More specifically, it was asked to
suggest ‘how the system of government could be better adapted both to meet the
requirements and promote the welfare of the different provinces’. Later in the year, on
the basis of its recommendations a Bill was introduced in Parliament which, in May
1909 emerged as the new scheme of constitutional reform.
The main provisions of this Act are as under:
• The chief merit of the Act lay in its provision to further enlarge the legislative
councils and at the same time, to make them more representative and effective.
• This was sought to be done under two main heads –Constitutional and
Functional.
• Constitutionally, the councils were now bigger; their numbers doubled in some
cases and more than doubled in others.
• Thus, whereas the Indian Council Act of 1892 had authorised only a maximum
of 16 additional members, that figure was now raised to 60.
• In much the same manner, the number of additional members for the
Presidencies of Madras, Bombay and Bengal were raised, from 20 to 50.
• The proportion of official to non-official members in the Governor-General’s
Council was substantially reduced. The new figures were 36 to 32. Of the
latter, 27 were to be elected and 5 nominated. In this way, the Council
continued to have the official majority. This was a deliberate policy. In
provinces, there was to be a non-official majority for the first time.
• In Bengal there was even an elected majority, outnumbering both the official
as well as nominated non-official blocs -28 to 20 and 4 respectively.
• The Morley-Minto Reforms increased the number of elected members in the
Imperial Legislative Council and the provincial councils.
• But most of the elected members were elected indirectly by the provincial
councils in the case of the Imperial Council and by municipal committees and
district boards in the case of provincial councils.
• Some of the elected seats were reserved for landlords and British capitalists in
India.
• For instance, of the 68 members of the Imperial Legislative Council, 36 were
officials and 5 were nominated non-officials.
• Of the 27 elected members, 6 were to represent the big landlords and 2 the
British capitalists.
• Moreover, the reformed councils still enjoyed no real power, being merely
advisory bodies.
• The reforms of British rule or the fact of foreign economic exploitation of the
country. The real purpose of the Reforms of 1909 was to confuse the moderate
nationalists, to divide the nationalist ranks, and to check the growth of unity
among Indians.
• The Reforms also introduced the system of separate Electorates under which
all Muslims were grouped in separate constituency from which Muslims alone
could be elected. This was done in the name of protecting the Muslim
 minority. But in reality this was a part of the policy of dividing Hindus and
Muslims and thus maintaining British supremacy in India.
• It checked the progress of India’s unification which had been a continuous
historical process. It became a potent factor in the growth of communalism –
both Muslim and Hindu – in the country.
• The separate electorates thus introduced for Muslims were later viewed by the
Simon Commission as a cardinal problem and ground of controversy at every
revision of the Indian electoral system.
• Instead of removing the educational and economic backwardness of the
middle class Muslims and thus integrating them into the mainstream of Indian
nationalism, the system of separate electorates tended to perpetuate their
isolation from the developing nationalist movement. It encouraged separatist
tendencies. It prevented people from concentrating on economic and political
problems which were common to all Indians, Hindu or Muslim.
• Apart from their constitution, the functions of the councils also underwent a
change. They could now, for instance, discuss the budget before it was finally
settled, propose resolutions on it and divide upon those resolutions. Members
could also discuss matters of public importance through resolutions and
divisions. Additionally, the right to ask question was enlarged and
supplementaries allowed. It may be noted that the resolutions were in the
nature of recommendations and were not binding on the government.
• A much trumpeted change was the appointment of an Indian to the Executive
Council of the Governor-General; Indians were also appointed to the councils
in Madras and Bombay. Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, later Lord Sinha, was the
first Law member. Two Indians were appointed to the Council of the Secretary
of State in London. In Madras and Bombay, the Executive Councils were
enlarged from 2 to 4. Such Councils were also to be formed in provinces ruled
by Lieutenant Governors. An executive council was thus constituted in Bengal
(1909), Bihar, Orissa (1912) and the United Provinces (1915).
The moderate nationalists did not fully support the Morley-Minto Reforms. They soon
realised that the reforms had not really granted much. But they decided to cooperate
with the government in working the reforms. This cooperation with the government
and their opposition to the programme of the militant nationalism proved very costly
to them. They gradually lost the respect and support of the public and were reduced to
a small political group.
In 1911, the Government also announced the annulment of the Partition of Bengal.
Western and Eastern Bengals were to be reunited while a new province consisting of
Bihar and Orissa was to be created. At the same time the seat of the central
Government was shifted from Calcutta to Delhi.
In World War I, the British claimed that they stood for the protection of democracy
around the world. Thus the Indians, who fought for them in this war, demanded that
democracy should also be introduced in their country. In his famous August
Declaration presented before the House of Commons on August 20 1917, Montague,
the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs said that in order to satisfy the local demands,
his government was interested in giving more representation to the natives in India.
New reforms would be introduced in the country to meet this objective. He came to
India and stayed here for six months. During this period he held meetings with
different government and non-government people. Finally, in cooperation with the
Governor General Lord Chelmsford, Montague presented a report on the
constitutional reforms for India in 1918. The report was discussed and approved by
the British Parliament and then became the Act of 1919. This Act is commonly known
as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms.
CHAPTER 5
Government of India Act of 1919
The Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford,
had prepared the report which served as the basis for the creation of the legislation.
The Act incorporated the idea of a dual form of government (referred to as a
"Dyarchy") for the major provinces. The rules were a complex set of instructions. For
example, the provincial legislative council of each major province acted to monitor
the activities of the provincial ministers.
The Act of 1919 also provided for a high commissioner to reside in London, who
would represent India their in Great Britain. The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to
1929.The reforms were the brainchild of Sir Edwin Montagu and Lord Chelmsford.
As per the set of reforms, the Imperial and Provincial Councils were to be enlarged
and a new system of dyarchy was to be introduced. As per the system, the Viceroy
would retain control of areas such as Defence, Foreign affairs and
Communications and the Government responsible to the Provincial Council would
control Health and Education. The former were the 'reserved list' whereas the
latter 'transferred lists'.
Also there was to be a bi-cameral legislature at the centre consisting of the Legislative
Assembly, consisting of 144 members out of which 41 were nominated. There would
also be a Council of States consisting of 34 elected and 26 nominated members. Once
again the Princely States were used to check the political parties.
The Indian National Congress was unhappy at these reforms and termed them as
'disappointing.' A special session was held in Mumbai under Hasan Imam and the
reforms were condemned. However, leaders such as Surendranath Banerjea were
inclined to accept the reforms, so they left the Congress and formed the Indian Liberal
Federation, which played a minor role in subsequent affairs.
The following were the main features of the Act of 1919:
1. The Council of the Secretary of State was to comprise of eight to twelve people.
Three of them should be Indian, and at least half of them should have spent at least
ten years in India.
2. The Secretary of State was supposed to follow the advice of his council.
3. Part of the expenses of the office of the Secretary of State was to be met by the
British Government.
4. The Secretary of State was not allowed to interfere in administrative matters of the
provinces concerning the 'Transferred Subjects' and also in the matters on which
Governor General and his Legislative were in agreement.
5. The Governor General had the power to nominate as many members to his
Executive Council as he wanted.
6. Members appointed to the Executive Council were to have served in India for at
least 10 years.
7. The Central Legislature was to consist of two houses i.e. the Council of the State
(Upper House) and the Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
8. Council of the State was to consist of 60 members out of which 33 were to be
elected and 27 nominated by the Governor General.
9. The Legislative Assembly was to consist of 144 members out of which 103 were to
be elected and 41 to be nominated by the Governor General.
10. The franchise was limited.
11. The tenure of the Upper House was five and of the Lower House was three years.
12. Both the houses had equal legislative powers. In case of a tie, the Governor
General was to call a joint meeting where the matter was to be decided by majority
vote.
13. The Executive Council was not responsible to the Legislature and the Governor
General had the right to refuse its advice.
14. Provincial Legislatures were supposed to be unicameral.
15. Seventy percent members of the Provincial Legislative Councils were to be
elected and thirty percent were to be nominated.
16. The Governors were given 'Instrument of Instructions' which guided them in
carrying out their administrative affairs.
17. The System of Diarchy was introduced in the provinces.
18. Besides Muslims, other minorities including Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Christians and
Europeans were also given the right of separate electorate.
19. New reforms were to be introduced after ten years.
The Montague-Chelmsford reforms were not accepted by most quarters in India as
they fell far short of the Indian natives' expectations.
CHAPTER 6
Government of India Act, 1935
After the failure of the Third Round Table Conference, the British government gave
the Joint Select Committee the task of formulating the new Act for India. The
Committee comprised of 16 members each from the House of Commons and House
of Lords, 20 representatives from British India and seven from the princely states.
Lord Linlithgow was appointed as the president of the Committee. After a year and a
half of deliberations, the Committee finally came out with a draft Bill on February 5,
1935. The Bill was discussed in the House of Commons for 43 days and in the House
of Lords for 13 days and finally, after being signed by the King, was enforced as the
Government of India Act, 1935, in July 1935.
The main features of the Act of 1935 were:
1. A Federation of India was promised for, comprising both provinces and states. The
provisions of the Act establishing the federal central government were not to go into
operation until a specified number of rulers of states had signed Instruments of
Accession. Since, this did not happen, the central government continued to function in
accordance with the 1919 Act and only the part of the 1935 Act dealing with the
provincial governments went into operation.
2. The Governor General remained the head of the central administration and enjoyed
wide powers concerning administration, legislation and finance.
3. No finance bill could be placed in the Central Legislature without the consent of the
Governor General.
4. The Federal Legislature was to consist of two houses, the Council of State (Upper
House) and the Federal Assembly (Lower House).
5. The Council of State was to consist of 260 members, out of whom 156 were to be
elected from the British India and 104 to be nominated by the rulers of princely states.
6. The Federal Assembly was to consist of 375 members; out of which 250 were to be
elected by the Legislative Assemblies of the British Indian provinces while 125 were
to be nominated by the rulers of princely states.
7. The Central Legislature had the right to pass any bill, but the bill required the
approval of the Governor General before it became Law. On the other hand Governor
General had the power to frame ordinances.
8. The Indian Council was abolished. In its place, few advisers were nominated to
help the Secretary of State for India.
9. The Secretary of State was not expected to interfere in matters that the Governor
dealt with, with the help of Indian Ministers.
10. The provinces were given autonomy with respect to subjects delegated to them.
11. Dyarchy, which had been established in the provinces by the Act of 1919, was to
be established at the Centre. However it came to an end in the provinces.
12. Two new provinces Sindh and Orissa were created.
13. Reforms were introduced in North-West Frontier Province as were in the other
provinces.
14. Separate electorates were continued as before.
15. One-third Muslim representation in the Central Legislature was guaranteed.
16. Autonomous provincial governments in 11 provinces, under ministries responsible
to legislatures, would be setup.
17. Burma and Aden were separated from India.
18. The Federal Court was established in the Centre.
19. The Reserve Bank of India was established.
Both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League opposed the Act, but
participated in the provincial elections of winter 1936-37, conducted under
stipulations of the Act. At the time of independence, the two dominions of India and
Pakistan accepted the Act of 1935, with few amendments, as their provisional
constitution.
CHAPTER 7
Indian Independence Act 1947
Till 1947, the Government of India functioned under the provisions of the
Government of India Act 1919 as the provisions of 1935 Act relating to federation
and Dyarchy did not come into operation. Thus, the Executive Council provided by
the 1919 Act continued to advise the Governor-General till 1947.
The 3 rd June plan was given effect by the Indian Independence Act 1947. This Bill
was introduced in the British Parliament on July 4, 1947, and on 18th July, got the
royal assent. India had won her freedom but the price was partition.
The dominion of Pakistan was inaugurated in Karachi on 14th August, 1947. India
became free on 15th August, 1947. Lord Mountbatten was sworn in as the Governor-
General. He swore in Jawahar Lal Nehru as the first Prime minister of free India.
Mohd. Ali Jinnah became the Governor General of Pakistan. The June 3 rd plan said
nothing about princely states. The British Prime Minister Clement Atlee had
announced in his speech of 20th February 1947 that Britain would not hand over
power and obligations to any successor government. In theory, this meant that the
states would become sovereign entities when the British left India.
The Indian Independence Act 1947 said that British rule over the Indian states was to
lapse on 15th August, 1947, they were allowed to join either India or Pakistan.
The provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947 were as follows:
(a) It declared India as an Independent and Sovereign state and brought to an end
the responsibility of the British Parliament for administration of India.
(b) It established responsible government at both the centre and the provinces. It
designated the Governor-General of India and the Provincial Governors as
constitutional heads (nominal heads). In other words, it made them to act on
the advice of the respective council of ministers.
(c) It assigned dual functions (i.e. constituent and legislative) to the Constituent
Assembly formed in 1946. It declared this dominion legislature as a sovereign
body.
The Indian Independence Bill was passed by the British Parliament on 15th July, 1947
and it received the royal assent of 18th July. British Control over India ended on 15th
August, 1947.
The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949 and it came into effect
on 26 th January, 1950.
CHAPTER 8
Important events in the Indian Administrative history are as under:
1854 Macaulay Committee – The Charter Act of 1853 abolished the patronage
system as a basis of selection and recruitment of civil servants of the
Company. Thus, the Court of Directors was deprived of its patronage
power and the covenanted civil service was thrown open to competition to
the Indians also under the rules to be framed by the Board of control.
Accordingly, the Macaulay Committee (the committee on the Indian Civil
service) was appointed in 1854 to suggest measures to give effect to the
above provisions of the Act.
The committee made the following recommendations in its report
submitted in 1854:

An open competition system should be adopted for recruitment to the
civil services.

The age of candidates for admission to the tests should be 18 to 23
years.

The competitive examinations should be held in London.

There should be a probationary period for the candidates before they
are finally appointed.

The East India College at Haileybury should be abolished.

The competitive examination should be of a high standard and should
ensure the selection of candidates with thorough knowledge.
All the above recommendations were accepted and implemented by the
Board of control. The first competitive examination was held in London in
1855 under the Board of Control. Later on in 1858, this responsibility was
transferred to the British Civil Service Commission (set up in 1855).
Similarly, the East India College was abolished in 1858 and training to the
civil servants was imparted in British universities. However, the first
Indian (Satyendranath Tagore) could enter into the covenanted civil
service only in 1864. The Indian Civil Service Act 1861 provided for the
reservation of certain principal posts for members of the covenanted
service. The next statutory Civil Service Act of 1870 remedied the defects
of 1861 Act and provided for the Indianisation of services. However, it
could be implemented only in 1879 by Lord Lytton, the then Viceroy.

1858 Power has been transferred to British Crown from the East India Company

1860 Special Committee on Civil Servants Salaries was appointed. Emphasis

on the residential qualification in India was made. The Committee
recommended the appointment of Indians in the Indian Administrative
Services.

1874 Committee on the Selection and Training of Candidates for the Indian
Civil Service was appointed. The maximum age for the competitive
examination was reduced to 19.

1886 In 1886, public service commission under the chairmanship of Charles

Aitchison was appointed to devise a scheme to do full justice to the claims
of Indians to higher and more extensive employment in public service. The
Aitchison Commission made the following recommendations in its report
submitted in 1887.

The two-tier classification of civil services into covenanted and
uncovenanted should be replaced by three-tier classification viz.
imperial, provincial and subordinate civil services.

The maximum age for entry into civil services should be fixed at 23
years.

The statutory civil service system of recruitment should be abolished.

The competitive examination should not be held simultaneously in
England and India.

Certain percentage of the posts in the imperial civil service should be
filled by promotion of the members of the provincial civil service.

The above recommendations of the Commission were largely

accepted and implemented. The statutory civil service was abolished in
1892.

Islington Commission
Again in 1912, Royal Commission on public services in India under the chairmanship
of Lord Islington was appointed. The Islington Commission made the following
recommendations in its report submitted in 1915:

Recruitment to the superior posts should be made partly in
England and partly in India. But, it did not favour the idea of
holding the competitive examinations simultaneously in
England and India.

25 percent of the superior posts should be filled by Indians
partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion.

The services under the Government of India should be
categorised into Class I and Class II.

The principle of maintenance of efficiency should be adopted
while fixing the salaries of civil servants.

There should be a probationary period of two years for direct
recruits.

For the ICS, it should be three years.

The report of the commission could be published only in 1917,
when the recommendations contained in it became out-dated
due to the first World War and the August Declaration of 1917.
Hence, no serious consideration was given to them.

Montford report
The next milestone in the evolution of civil service was the Montague-
Chelmsford Report (or Montford Report or Report on Indian Constitutional
Reforms) of 1918 which made the following recommendations:

33 percent of the superior posts should be recruited in India and
this percentage should be recruited in India and this percentage
should be increased by 1.5 percent annually.

The competitive examination should be held simultaneously in
England and India.

The members of the ICS should be given fair salary, pension
benefits and allowances.

Lee Commission
In 1923, the Royal Commission on superior civil services in India under the
chairmanship of Lord Viscount Lee was appointed. The Commission made the
following recommendations in its report submitted in 1924:

The Indian Civil service, Indian Police Service, Indian Medical
Service of Engineers (irrigation branch) and Indian Forest
Service (except in the Bombay province) should be retained.
The members of these services were continued to be appointed
as well as controlled by the Secretary of State for India.

No further recruitment should be made other all-India services
viz. the Indian Agricultural Service, Indian Veterinary Service,
Indian Educational Service, Indian Service of Engineers( roads
and building branch) and Indian Forest Service ( only in
Bombay province). The members of these services should in
future be appointed and controlled by the provincial
governments.

For effecting Indianisation of services, twenty per cent of the
superior posts should be filled by promotion from the
provincial civil service. Direct recruitments should be in equal
proportions for Indians and Englishmen so that a ratio of 50:50
is produced in about 15 years.

The British officers should be allowed to retire on proportionate
pensions if they are not willing to work under Indian Ministers.

A Public Service Commission, as provided by the Government
of India Act of 1919, should be established.
The above recommendations were accepted and implemented by the British
Government, as result of which a Central Public Service Commission was set up in
1926 and entrusted with the task of recruiting civil servants. The commission was
composed of a chairman and four other members. Sir Ross Barker, a senior member
of the British Home Civil Service, was the first chairman. In 1937 (when the 1935 Act
became operative), the commission was replaced by the Federal Public Service
Commission which was finally replaced by the UPSC on January 26, 1950 (when the
Constitution of India came into force).
Conclusion
In1858, the British Crown assumed sovereignty over India from the East India
Company and Parliament enacted the first statute for the governance of India under
the direct rule of the British government ---the Government of India Act, 1858.By this
Act, the powers of the crown were to be exercised by the Secretary of State of India –
who was assisted by a council of 15 members (known as the council of India). The
Secretary of State was made responsible to the British parliament and he governed
India through the Governor General assisted by an Executive Council which consisted
of high officials of the Government. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 introduced a
grain of popular element in the Governor General Executive council. In the year 1892,
Indians found their way in the Provincial Legislative Councils through the Indian
Councils Act 1892.Thereafter Indian Council Act, 1909 or Morley-Minto Act
envisaged a separate electorate for Muslims.
Government of India Act, 1919 Or Montague-Chelmsford Reforms introduced
Dyarchy system in the provinces. The Provincial subjects of administration were to be
divided into 2 categories: Transferred and Reserved. The Transferred subjects were to
be administrated by the Governor with the aid of ministers responsible to the
Legislative Council. The Governor and the Executive Council were to administer the
reserved subjects without any responsibility to the legislature.
Later Government of India Act, 1935 provided for the establishment of All-India
Federation consisting of the British Provinces and the Princely States. The joining of
Princely States was voluntary and as a result the federation did not come into
existence. Dyarchy was introduced at the Centre (E.g., Department of Foreign Affairs
and Defence were reserved for the Governor General). Provincial autonomy replaced
Dyarchy in provinces. They were granted separate legal identify.
Finally the Indian Independence Act, 1947 was the legislation passed by the British
Parliament that officially approved the independence of India and the partition of
India. Passed in June 1947, the Act basically stipulated that:
*The British Raj of India shall be terminated on the midnight of August 15th, 1947
*An independent dominion of India shall be created out of the United Provinces,
Central Provinces, Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, the Carnatic, East
Punjab, West Bengal, Assam and the Northeast Frontier Agency. The territories of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and the Lakshadweep Islands are also turned over to
the Indian Dominion.
*An independent dominion of Pakistan shall be created out of the provinces of West
Punjab, East Bengal, Baluchistan and Sindh.
*That all Indian princely states shall be released from their official commitments and
treaty relationships with the British Empire, and will be free to join either dominion.
*Both Dominions will be completely self-governing in their internal affairs, foreign
affairs and national security, but the King of England will continue to be their head of
state, represented by the Governor-General of India and a new Governor-General of
Pakistan. Both Dominions shall convene their Constituent Assemblies and write their
respective constitutions.
References
1. Introduction to the Constitution of India- Dr. Durga Das Basu
2. Public Administration- M Lakshmikanth
3. Indian Administration : Institution & Issues- Rajni Goyal & R.K.Arora
4. Indian Administration- S.R. Maheshwari
5. Internet, Journals, Chronicles, etc.
6. Indian History - Krishna Reddy
7. Indian History – Agnihotri
8. The Advanced History of India - Majumdar, Raychaudhuri & Datta
9. Public Administration: Administrative theories and concepts- Dr. B.L.
Fadia, Dr. Kuldeep Fadia
10. B.N. Puri : Administrative History of India (Vol. I, II and III).
11. Indian Journal Public Administration on Indian Administration