1

1909 Indian Councils Act

or
Minto-Morely Reforms
Governor General from 1894-1910

• Lord Elgin 1894-1899

• Lord Curzon 1899-1905
• Lord Minto 1905-1910

• Political awakening of India

• Demands of Indian National Congress
• Separation of Bengal
• Extremists activities
• To satisfy moderates
• To isolate Muslims from the rest of India
• In view of the Government of India was the
territorial representation was not suitable to the
people of India.

• Instead of territorial representation they

introduced separate electorates for the different
communities and classes in the presidencies.

4
Increased representation to the Indians in Council

The size of the Legislative Councils was enlarged by

according more representation to the various
classes of persons and bodies.

In the case of Governor General Council the total

membership was raised from 16 to 60. (excluding
Governor General and 8 Council members)

The maximum number of members of the Provincial

Council of Bengal, Bombay and Madras was raised
from 20 to 50 members.
The Central Legislative Council was to consist of 37
official and 32 non-officials.

Out of 37 officials, 28 were to be nominated by the

Governor General and the rest were to be ex-
officio.

The ex-officio members were to be the Governor

General, and 8 council members and governor of the
province where meeting took place.

Out of 32 non-official members, 5 were to be

nominated by the Governor General and the rest
were to be elected.
 Central Legislative Council
60+9=69
Officials Non official
37 32
Ex-officio Nominated Elected Nominated
9 28 27 5

General Electorates 13
Class Electorates 6
Special Electorates 2
Muslims Electorates 6

7
• General Electorates: 13 from all ten provinces
• Class Electorates: Landlords constituencies of
provinces
• Special Electorates: 2 from Presidency
Corporation, chamber of Commerce and trade
interests.
• Muslim Electorates: 6 Muslim members including
two from Bengal, and each from Bombay, Madras,
Burma
• Nominated officials: I.C.S officers

8
• The majority of the members were to be non-officials in
the Presidencies i.e. (35+15). Some of the non-officials
were to be nominated by the Governor.

• In view of the Government of India was the territorial

representation was not suited to the people of India.

• Instead of territorial representation they introduced

separate electorates for the different communities and
classes in the presidencies.

• In the Central and provinces, the University Senates,

landlords, District Boards and Municipalities, Muslims
and Chambers of Commerce were to elect members.
Ex-officio members ( Governor General and Council)
who by virtue of office held by them in the government
were to be given membership.
Nominated officials I.C.S officers
The Governor General was empowered to nominate civil
servants as members.
Nominated non-officials
The Governor General was empowered to nominate certain
persons from public life who did not hold any office
under the Government.
The Elected members
Those who were elected on basis of elections, namely,
members from provinces, Chambers of
Commerce( Bombay and Calcutta), Muslims,
Municipalities, District Boards and landlord class etc.
Enlargement of the functions of legislative councils
• The Act gave powers to the members to move
resolutions relating to loan to local bodies,
• additional grants and new tax proposals,
• on certain matters no right to discussion was made
available. (External policy, relations with Indian
rulers)

• The members were also empowered to discuss and

move resolutions relating to matter of public
interest.

• The President could disallow any resolution or a

part of a resolution without giving any reason.
Changes in the electoral system :There were three types
of electorates

General Electorates: Consisting of non-officials

members either of Provincial legislative Councils
or of Municipal and District Boards.

Class Electorates: Consisting of landlords and

Mohammedans.

Special Electorates: Consisting of Presidency

Corporations, Universities, Chamber of Commerce
and trade and business interests.
 1919 Indian Councils Act
or
Montague-Chelmsford Reforms
• Reunion of Bengal in 1911
•  First World War 1914 – 1918
• Lucknow Pact of Congress- Muslim league 1916
• Demands of Indian National Congress
• It made wide-ranging demands for greater self-
government,
• Equality of Indians with other races throughout
the British Empire and
• Commonwealth (in response to racial
discrimination in South Africa and Canada),

14
• Greater opportunities for Indians in the armed
forces of India
• In response, the new secretary of state for
India, Edwin Montagu, officially announced the
British government’s commitment to
• “the gradual development of self-governing
institutions with a view to the progressive
realization of responsible government in India” in
August 1917

15
• In order to achieve responsible government it was
necessary to provide for the increasing
association of the Indians in every branch of
administration and the gradual development of
self governing Institutions.

The Secretary of State for Indian was paid out of

the Indian revenues. It was now provided that
the future he would be paid out of British
revenues.
Some of the functions of the Secretary of State
for India were taken away from him and given to
a High Commissioner for India who was to be
appointed and paid by the government of India.
The High Commissioner was to act as the agent of
the Governor General in Council.

The control of the Secretary of State was reduced

in the provincial sphere in so far as the
transferred department were concerned.

The Act setup bicameral Legislature at the Centre

in place of the Imperial legislature Council
consisting of one house.

The names of the two houses were the two Houses

were the Central Legislative Assembly
Council of State.
Council of State Central Legislative Assembly
5 years 3 years
60 members 145 Members
33 elected + 103 Elected +
27 Nominated 42 Nominated

• Out of 103 elected communal constituencies

• 30 for Muslims
• 2 for Sikhs
• 7 for landholders
• 9 for Europeans
• 4 for Indian Commerce 18
The first speaker of the Central Assembly was
nominated by the Government but subsequent
speakers were elected by the members of the
central Assembly.

Government decided to conduct direct elections for

both the Houses.
Voters for Council of State:
In the Council of State voter were assessed either
to income tax or land revenue of Rs.750 to
Rs.5000
• In addition, those how had previous experience
in public work or who were recognized as men of
high scholarship or academic enrolled on the
election roll of general constancies for the
Council of State.

20
Voters for Central Legislative Assembly

The qualification of the voter for Central Assembly was

either the payment of Municipal taxes amounting to not
less than Rs. 15-20 per annum.
Or
Ownership of a house of an annual income of not less than
Rs. 3000 to 5000.
Or
Assessment of land revenue for Rs. 50 to 150 per annum.

The total number of voter for Council of State was about

17,343.
For Central Assembly about 9,09,874 in 1920
Powers of Two Houses

It could make laws for the whole of British India for the
subjects of His Majesty and service of Crown in any part
of India.
The Central Legislature had no power to amend or abolish
any parliamentary statues relating to British India.

Governor General Powers

• G.G or Viceroy was given to the power to summon,

prorogue and dissolve to two Houses.

• He had given the right to address the members of the

two Houses.
• G. G was given the powers to extent laws which he
considered essential for the safety and interests
of British India, if either Houses refused or
failed to pass them.

• In case of emergency he could release ordinance

for the peace and quite government of British
India.

• Governor General had veto power and it was

exercised on many times.
• The Crown had the power to disallowing any Act
made by the Indian legislation or the Governor
General.
Powers of the members

The members of both the Houses they could ask

questions and supplementary questions, moving
resolutions according to legislature rules.

The members were given the right of freedom of

speech in the two Houses.
• The Act provided for two lists of Subjects:
Central List and Provincial list
Central list Provincial list
Defense Local-Self Governments
Posts and Telegraphs Public Health and Sanitation
Patents and copyright Education
Currency and Coinage Public Works
Communication Water supply and Irrigation
Commerce and shipping Land revenue administration
Civil and criminal law and Famine relief
procedure
Agriculture
Cooperative Societies
Law and order
Provincial Legislative Councils

Provincial 70% of the members of the Provincial Legislatures

were elected, about 30 % of the were nominated by the
Governor.

Some of the nominated members were official and others

were non-officials.

The life time of the Council was three years but it could be
dissolved earlier by the Governor who could also extend
its life.

Members were given the right of asking questions and

supplementary questions. They could reject the Budget
but the Governor was authorized to restore it the same
was considered to be necessary.
Transferred and Reserved Subjects.

Reserved Subjects were administered by the Governor

with help of the Executive Council and the transferred
subjects were dealt with by the Governor with help of
his ministers.

Members of the Executive Council were nominated by the

Governor, the ministers were chosen by the Governor
from the members of the legislature
Reserved Subjects Transferred Subjects
Administration of Justice Local self Government
Police
Irrigation and canals Public works , roads, bridges ,
municipal roads.
Drainage Public heath
Water storage and agricultural Sanitation and medical
loans administration
Famine relief
Control of new papers
Books and printing press
Prisons and reformatories
Forests
Factory inspection
Settlements of labor disputes
Industrial insurance and housing Development of Industries including
Industrial Research
The system of diarchy was worked in the provinces from
1921 to 1937, but experience shows that it did not work
satisfactory many factors were responsible for its
failure.

The division of the department or subjects were not

properly distributed.

No cooperation between the two halves of the Provincial

administration. Some times the ministers and Executive
Councils condemned each other in public.

The ministers were the representatives of the people,

while members of Executive Council belonged to the
officials.
• Non-cooperation between minister's and Executive council
led to so many disturbances in administration.

• Generally, Governor backed the members of the

Executive Council.

• Minister was responsible to the Legislative for the

administration of his department.

• He could be turned out by the legislature by a vote of no-

confidence.
• The position of the permanent service created many
difficulties.

• The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal and

transfer of the member of All India Service was under
the control of the Secretary of State for India.

• Those All India Service officers also appointed the

transferred departments and did not care for ministers.

• Ministers had no power to choose their own subordinates.

• Ministers were not in a position to implement their own

views and plans in the department.
• According to the rules of Executive business, cases in which
the Minister differed from the opinion of the permanent
Secretary or the Head of the department, had to submitted
Governor for final orders.

• Both the Secretary and the Head of the Department had a

weekly interview with the Governor and could discuss every
thing about his department.

• Sometimes the Governor knew more things about the a

department than the concerned minister.

• The department finance in the hands of the members of the

Executive Council.

• All the nation-building department were given to the

ministers but they were given no money for the same.
• Finance Secretary had no sympathy with the aspirations
of the Indians as represented by ministers.

• In certain cases, the finance department refused even to

examine any scheme proposed by ministers.