Modern History Notes : Chapter-26 : Progression of Constitutional Structure (Arora IAS Class Notes)

Chapter-26

Progression of Constitutional Structure

Arora IAS Class Notes

 

British East India Company Rule (1765-1858)

Background:

• After the Battle of Buxar (1764), the East India Company gained revenue collection rights (Diwani) in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
• A dual system of governance existed initially:
  • Company held authority but lacked responsibility.
  • Indian representatives had responsibility but no authority.
• This period saw rampant corruption and exploitation by Company servants.

 

The Regulating Act of 1773

• Marked the British government’s first intervention in Indian affairs.
• Aimed to control and regulate the East India Company’s functioning.
• Key features:
  • Increased British government control over Indian affairs.
  • Recognized the Company’s administrative and political role beyond trade.
  • Introduced centralized administration:
    • Company directors required to submit reports to the British government.
    • Governor-General and a four-member council established in Bengal (majority rule).
    • Supreme Court of Judicature created in Bengal with original and appellate jurisdiction.
    • Limited control of the Governor-General over Bombay and Madras.
  • Checks and balances intended.

Amendments of 1781

• Defined Supreme Court jurisdiction:
  • Applied personal law of the defendant within Calcutta.
  • Protected government servants acting in their official capacity.
  • Respected social and religious customs.

 

Pitt’s India Act of 1784

• Increased British government control over the East India Company.
• Company became a subordinate department of the British state.
• Company territories in India termed “British possessions.”
• Established a Board of Control:
  • Chancellor of the Exchequer
  • Secretary of State
  • Four members of the Privy Council (appointed by the Crown)
• Board controlled Company’s civil, military, and revenue affairs.
• Dispatches required Board approval (dual control system).
• Governor-General’s council reduced to three members (including commander-in-chief).
• Bombay and Madras presidencies subordinated to Governor-General.
• Aimed to prevent aggressive wars and treaties (often violated).

 

The Act of 1786

• Granted Cornwallis combined powers of Governor-General and commander-in-chief.
• Allowed him to overrule council decisions if he accepted responsibility.
• This provision later extended to all governors-general.

 

The Charter Act of 1793

• Renewed Company’s commercial privileges for 20 years.
• Required Company to pay £5 lakh annually to the British government after Indian expenses.
• Mandated royal approval for appointing governor-general, governors, and commander-in-chief.
• Restricted senior officials’ travel without permission (considered resignation).
• Empowered Company to grant trade licenses (“privilege” or “country trade”).
  • Enabled opium shipments to China.
• Separated revenue administration from judiciary (dissolved Maal Adalats courts).
• Established British government member salaries paid from Indian revenues (until 1919).

 

The Charter Act of 1813

• Ended Company’s trade monopoly in India due to:
  • Laissez-faire economic ideas.
  • Napoleon’s continental system closing European ports to Britain.
• Retained Company’s monopoly on China trade and tea trade.
• Guaranteed Company shareholders a 10.5% dividend on Indian revenue.
• Company retained territorial possessions and revenue for 20 years.
• Explicitly defined the constitutional position of British territories in India for the first time (Crown sovereignty).
• Further expanded Board of Control’s powers.
• Allocated ₹1 lakh annually for reviving and promoting “literature, learning, and science among the natives of India” (government responsibility for education).
• Required regulations from Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta councils to be submitted to British Parliament.
• Mandated separate accounts for commercial transactions and territorial revenues.
• Significantly expanded Board of Control’s power of superintendence and direction.
• Permitted Christian missionaries to enter India and preach.

 

The Charter Act of 1833

• Extended the Company’s rule for another 20 years.
• Established governance in the name of the British Crown.
• Ended Company monopolies on China trade and tea.
• Lifted restrictions on European immigration and property ownership (facilitated European colonization).
• Centralized governance in India:
  • Governor-General controlled all civil and military affairs.
  • Bengal, Madras, and Bombay presidencies under Governor-General’s control.
  • Centralized control over revenue and expenditure.
  • Madras and Bombay presidencies lost legislative powers (limited to proposing laws).
• Added a law member to the Governor-General’s council.
• Initiated codification and consolidation of Indian laws.
• Prohibited discrimination in employment based on religion, race, or birth (limited practical effect but became a foundation for future political movements).
• Urged measures to improve slave conditions and ultimately abolish slavery (abolished in 1843).

 

The Charter Act of 1853

• Company retained control of territories unless Parliament intervened.
• Reduced Court of Directors to 18 members.
• Ended Company’s patronage system for civil services (replaced with competitive examinations).
• Elevated the law member to a full member of the Governor-General’s executive council.
• Further separated executive and legislative functions:
  • Six additional members added for legislative purposes (Indian Legislative Council).
  • Local representation introduced in the legislature.
• Laws still required Governor-General’s assent, and he could veto legislative council bills.

 

The Act for Better Government of India 1858

Response to 1857 Revolt

• Exposed limitations of East India Company’s administration.
• Aimed to increase accountability.

Key Changes

• Governance transferred to the British Crown.
• Secretary of State with a 15-member council to govern India.
  • Secretary of State held final decision-making power (council advisory).
• Ended the dual control system introduced by Pitt’s India Act (1784).
• Elevated Governor-General to Viceroy (increased prestige).
• Formalized Crown rule, replacing the East India Company.

 

Developments after 1858 till Independence

Indian Councils Act 1861

• Introduced representation of non-officials in legislative bodies.
• Established legislative processes for creation and modification of laws.
• Laid foundation for cabinet government with departmental heads.
• Established legislative devolution with provincial legislative councils.

Weaknesses of 1861 Act

• Limited powers of councils:
  • Could not discuss important matters or finances without government approval.
  • No control over budget.
  • No ability to discuss executive actions.
  • Viceroy and Secretary of State could veto legislation.
• Limited membership:
  • Only elite sections of Indian society included.

 

Indian Councils Act 1892

• Response to Indian National Congress demands for reform.
• Increased number of non-official members in central and provincial councils.
• Introduced indirect election through recommendations from universities, local bodies, and business groups.
• Allowed members to discuss financial statements and ask limited questions within guidelines.

 

Indian Councils Act 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms)

• First attempt at introducing representative and popular elements in governance.
• Increased size of Imperial Legislative Council.
• Appointed the first Indian member (Satyendra Prasad Sinha) to the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
• Increased powers of central and provincial legislative councils (but real power remained with the government).
• Introduced separate electorates for Muslims, creating new problems:
  • Overrepresentation of Muslims.
  • Lower voting qualification for Muslims compared to Hindus.
  • Indirect election system.

 

Government of India Act 1919 (Montague-Chelmsford Reforms)

• Gradual introduction of responsible government within the British Empire.
• Established a bicameral legislature at the center:
  • Council of State (Upper House)
  • Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
• Introduced direct elections (with limited franchise based on property, tax, or education).
• Extended communal representation with separate electorates for various groups.
• Implemented dyarchy in provinces:
  • Divided administration into subjects controlled by ministers responsible to the legislature (transferred subjects) and subjects controlled by the executive council (reserved subjects).
• Separated provincial and central budgets, giving provincial legislatures budgetary power.
• Appointed a High Commissioner for India in London to manage Indian trade in Europe.
• Ended the practice of paying the Secretary of State for India from Indian revenue.

Limitations of 1919 Act

• Limited responsible government:
  • Legislature could not replace the government.
  • Legislative and financial powers remained limited and subject to the Governor-General’s veto.
• Unitary and centralized structure despite devolution of some power to provinces.
• Dyarchy in provinces proved unsuccessful.
• Non-sovereign legislature with limited power compared to the executive.

Government of India Act 1935

Background

• Established by British Parliament following recommendations of Simon Commission (1927).
• Aimed to address shortcomings of Government of India Act 1919.

Key Features

• Federal Structure (not fully implemented):
  • Envisioned All-India Federation with provinces and princely states.
  • Each princely state would sign an “instrument of accession” defining its participation.
• Federal Legislature (bicameral):
  • Council of States (Upper House) – permanent body.
  • Federal Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
  • Provision for joint sitting in case of deadlock between houses.
• Division of Powers:
  • Three legislative lists:
    • Federal Legislative List
    • Provincial Legislative List
    • Concurrent Legislative List
  • Residuary legislative powers under Governor-General’s discretion.
  • Governor-General could veto bills passed by the legislature.
  • King-in-Council could disallow acts even after assent by Governor-General.
• Provincial Autonomy:
  • Abolished dyarchy system.
  • Full responsible government in provinces (subject to safeguards).
  • Provinces derived power directly from the British Crown.
  • Independent financial powers for provinces.
  • Expanded provincial legislatures:
    • Bicameral in six provinces (Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar, Assam).
    • Unicameral in other five provinces.
  • Communal Representation:
    • Extended communal electorates and weightage to depressed classes, women, and labor.
  • Enlarged Franchise:
    • About 10% of population received voting rights.
  • Federal Court:
    • Established in 1937.
    • Original and appellate jurisdiction to interpret 1935 Act and settle interstate disputes.
    • Limited power due to dominance of Privy Council in London.
  • India Council Abolished:
    • Ended the India Council of the Secretary of State.

Limitations

• All-India Federation never materialized due to opposition from Indian parties.
• Rigid constitution with no provision for internal development.
• Amendment right reserved for British Parliament.
• Communal electorates and interest-based representation promoted separatism (contributed to partition).
• Rejected by Congress, who demanded a Constituent Assembly for an independent India.

Note:

• Provincial autonomy implemented on April 1, 1937.
• Central government continued under 1919 Act with minor amendments.
• 1935 Act remained in effect until August 15, 1947.

 

Evolution of Civil Services in India

From Commerce to Administration

• East India Company’s civil service initially focused on commercial activities.
• Gradually, civil servants took on administrative responsibilities for acquired territories.

Cornwallis’ Reforms (1786-1793)

• Established and organized the civil service.
• Aimed to reduce corruption through:
  • Increased salaries for civil servants.
  • Strict rules against private trade.
  • Ban on accepting gifts and bribes.
  • Promotions based on seniority.

Wellesley’s Initiatives (1798-1805)

• Founded Fort William College in 1800 for training new recruits (discontinued in 1806).
• Established East India College at Haileybury, England in 1806 for a two-year training program.

Exclusion of Indians

• Belief that only the British could administer India for British interests.
• Perception of Indians as incapable, untrustworthy, and insensitive to British interests.
• High competition among Europeans for lucrative positions.
• Charter Act of 1793 reserved high-paying positions for the Company’s covenanted servants.
• Charter Act of 1833 theoretically opened services to Indians, but not implemented.

Limited Entry for Indians

• Proclamation of 1858 promised to include Indians in civil service positions.
• Indian Civil Service Act of 1861:
  • Reserved some positions for covenanted civil servants.
  • Examinations held in England, requiring English language and classical learning (Greek & Latin).
  • Age limit progressively reduced, making it difficult for Indians to compete.
• Satyendra Nath Tagore became the first Indian to qualify for the Indian Civil Service in 1863.

 

Evolution of Civil Services in India: Statutory Civil Service and Beyond

Statutory Civil Service (1878-1879)

• Introduced by Lord Lytton.
• Aimed to give Indians limited access to higher positions.
• One-sixth of covenanted posts filled by Indians from high families through nominations.
• Approval process by Secretary of State and Viceroy made it difficult for Indians.
• The system failed and was abolished.

Congress Demands and Aitchison Committee (1885-1886)

• Indian National Congress demanded:
  • Lower age limit for recruitment.
  • Simultaneous examinations in India and Britain.
• Aitchison Committee recommendations (under Lord Dufferin):
  • Abolish terms “covenanted” and “uncovenanted.”
  • Classify services into Imperial, Provincial, and Subordinate levels.
  • Raise age limit to 23.
• House of Commons resolution (1893) supported simultaneous exams in India, but not implemented.
• Secretary of State Lord Kimberley resisted Indian participation, citing a need for “adequate number of Europeans.”

Montford Reforms 1919

• Recognized the need for Indian involvement in administration for responsible government.
• Recommended:
  • Simultaneous examinations in India and England.
  • One-third of recruitment in India, increasing annually by 1.5%.

Lee Commission (1924)

• Secretary of State to continue recruiting for elite services (ICS, Engineering, Forest).
• Provincial governments to handle recruitment for “transferred fields” like education and health.
• Direct ICS recruitment:
  • 50:50 parity between Europeans and Indians within 15 years.
• Recommended immediate establishment of a Public Service Commission.

Government of India Act 1935

• Established a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions.
• Control and authority remained in British hands.
• “Indianisation” of services did not translate to real political power for Indians, who still acted as agents of colonial rule.

 

Exclusion of Indians from Civil Services under British Rule

• Limited Entry:
  • Exams held in London, English only.
  • Classical Greek & Latin required.
  • Age limit reduced from 23 (1859) to 19 (1878) under Lytton.
• European Domination:
  • Key positions held by Europeans.
  • Higher salaries for Europeans.
• Slow Indianization:
  • Increased Indian recruitment after 1918, but limited impact.
  • Senior positions remained European.
• Limited Power for Indians:
  • Indian civil servants served British interests.
  • Indianization did not translate to real power.

 

Evolution of Police System in Modern India

Pre-Colonial Era

• No formal police system under Mughals and other native states.
• Watch guards protected villages.
• Mughals used:
  • Faujdars (law & order)
  • Amils (revenue collectors with policing duties)
  • Kotwals (urban law & order)

Early British Rule (1765-1814)

• Dual rule in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa (1765-1772):
  • Zamindars responsible for law & order with thanedars.
  • System often neglected, with zamindars colluding with criminals.
• 1770: Faujdar and amil positions abolished.
• 1774: Warren Hastings restored faujdars and tasked zamindars with assisting them.
• 1775: Faujdar thanas established in major towns.

Cornwallis (1786-1793)

• 1791: Established a regular police force based on “thana” system.
  • Daroga (Indian officer) led each thana.
  • Superintendent of Police (SP) headed the district force.
  • Zamindars relieved of police duties.

Mayo (1808)

• Appointed an SP for each division, assisted by spies (“goyendas”) who often harassed locals.

1814

• Court of Directors abolished darogas and subordinates (except in Bengal).

Bentinck (1828-1835)

• Abolished SP position.
• Collector/magistrate became head of district police force.
• Commissioner acted as SP for each division.
• This system resulted in a poorly organized and overburdened police force.
• Presidency towns were the first to separate collector/magistrate duties.

Police Commission (1860) and Indian Police Act (1861)

• Recommended a civil constabulary system:
  • Village watchmen maintained.
  • Integrated with broader police structure.
• Established a hierarchical structure:
  • Inspector-General (province)
  • Deputy Inspector-General (range)
  • Superintendent of Police (district)
• Police achieved success in curbing dacoity, thugee (strangulation gangs), etc.
  • However, public perception of police remained negative due to:
    • Unsympathetic attitude.
    • Role in suppressing national movement.
  • Act provided a framework for police setup across provinces.
  • Standardized police ranks nationwide.

Police Commission (1902-1903) under Curzon

• Recommended reforms:
  • Direct recruitment for senior police officials.
  • Training schools for constables and officers.
  • Increased police force strength.
  • Permission for police to visit villages for investigations.
  • Salary raises.
  • Creation of a Central Criminal Intelligence Department (DCI).
• Following recommendations:
• DCI established (later became central intelligence agency).
• Criminal Investigation Departments (CIDs) set up in provinces (later divided into Special Branch, CID, and Crime Branch).
• Police developed as a tool for maintaining British rule.
• Repressive tactics towards the nationalist movement further alienated the public.

 

The British Indian Army: Structure and Control

Pre-1857: Two Armies

• Queen’s Army: British troops serving in India.
• Company’s Army:
  • European regiments.
  • Indian sepoys with British officers.

Post-1857 Reorganisation

• Driven by:
  • Preventing another Sepoy Mutiny (1857).
  • Defending India from rival empires.
  • Expanding British influence in Asia and Africa.

European Domination

• Increased European troop presence (one-third of total force).
• Strict European control over:
  • Key military departments (artillery, tanks).
  • Advanced weaponry (until 1900).
• No Indian officers until 1914 (limited commissioned ranks after 1918).
• Slow Indianization: 50% officer cadre by 1952 (planned).

Divide-and-Rule Tactics

• “Balance and Counterpoise” strategy:
  • Pitting Indian soldiers from different regions against each other.
• “Martial Races” Theory:
  • Favored recruitment from specific communities (Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans).
  • Disfavored recruitment from areas involved in the Sepoy Mutiny.
• Communal and caste-based companies:
  • Discouraged nationalistic sentiment among soldiers.

Isolation from Indian Society

• Restricted access to newspapers and nationalist publications.

Overall Significance

• The British Indian Army:
  • Expensive to maintain.
  • Served British imperial interests.

 

Development of Judiciary in British India

Pre-British Era

• No formal court system.
• Disputes settled by:
  • Caste elders/village panchayats/zamindars (Hindus).
  • Qazis (Muslim religious officials) in provincial capitals, towns, and large villages.
• Rulers as the arbitrary fountainhead of justice.

Early British Reforms (1726-1793)

• 1726:East India Company establishes Mayor’s Courts in Madras, Bombay, Calcutta – foundation of common law system.
• Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-1785):
  • District Diwani Adalats (civil courts) for Hindus and Muslims (separate legal codes).
  • District Fauzdari Adalats (criminal courts) under Muslim law.
  • Sadar Diwani Adalat (appellate court) for civil disputes.
  • Sadar Nizamat Adalat (appellate court) for criminal disputes.
  • Supreme Court in Calcutta (original & appellate jurisdiction for British subjects).

Cornwallis Reforms (1786-1793): Separation of Powers

• Abolition of District Fauzdari Adalats:Replaced by circuit courts with European judges for civil & criminal appeals.
• Sadar Nizamat Adalat relocated to Calcutta under Governor-General & Council.
• District Diwani Adalat renamed District/City/Zila Court under a district judge.
• Collector responsible only for revenue (no magisterial functions).
• Graduated court system established for both Hindu & Muslim law:
  • Munsiff’s Court (Indian officers).
  • Registrar’s Court (European judge).
  • District Court.
  • Four Circuit Courts (provincial appeals).
  • Sadar Diwani Adalat (Calcutta).
  • King-in-Council (appeals over 5,000 pounds).
• Cornwallis Code:
  • Separation of revenue & judicial administration.
  • Europeans under court jurisdiction.
  • Government officials answerable to courts.
  • Established principle of rule of law.

William Bentinck Reforms (1828-1833)

• Abolition of Circuit Courts (functions transferred to collectors).
• Sadar Diwani & Nizamat Adalats established in Allahabad for Upper Provinces.
• Introduction of option for vernacular languages in courts (previously Persian only).
• 1833:Law Commission established under Macaulay for legal code creation.
  • Led to:
    • Civil Procedure Code (1859).
    • Indian Penal Code (1860).
    • Criminal Procedure Code (1861).

Later Developments

• 1860:Europeans lose most special privileges in criminal cases (except trial by European judges).
• 1865:Merger of Supreme Court & Sadar Adalats into High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras).
• 1935:Government of India Act establishes a Federal Court (1937) for disputes between governments and limited appeals from High Courts.

Evaluation

Positive Aspects

• Rule of law established.
• Codified laws replaced religious/personal laws.
• Europeans under some legal jurisdiction.
• Government servants accountable to courts.

Negative Aspects

• Complex and expensive system.
• Advantages for the wealthy.
• Opportunities for false evidence and delays.
• Overburdened courts.
• Unfamiliarity of European judges with Indian customs.

 

Changes in British Administration After 1857

Reasons for Change

• Sepoy Mutiny (1857) exposed vulnerabilities in British rule.
• Need to appease Indians and gather intelligence.
• New stage of colonialism:
  • Industrial revolution intensified competition for resources.
  • Britain faced challenges to its global dominance.
  • Increased British economic investment in India.
• Desire to consolidate British power and expand influence.

Overall Goal: Secure British economic and political interests in India.

Central Government (After 1858)

• Act for Better Government of India (1858):
  • Power transferred from East India Company to British Crown.
  • Secretary of State (member of British cabinet) became head.
  • Viceroy (Governor General) with an executive council assisted the Secretary of State.
  • Ended the dual system introduced by Pitt’s India Act (1784).
  • Increased influence of British businesses on Indian policy.
• Indian Councils Act (1861):
  • Viceroy’s Executive Council expanded to include a jurist member.
  • Legislative Council established (advisory only).
    • Limited membership (elite Indians and British).
    • No power to discuss budgets or critical matters.
    • Viceroy and Secretary of State held veto power over legislation.
  • Viceroy could issue ordinances in emergencies.

Provincial Government

• Indian Councils Act (1861):
  • Legislative powers returned to Madras and Bombay presidencies.
  • Other provinces established legislative councils later.
• Presidency vs. Other Provinces:
  • Presidencies (Bombay, Madras, Calcutta) had more power.
  • Governed by a Governor and Executive Council (appointed by Crown).
  • Other provinces: Lieutenant Governors/Chief Commissioners (appointed by Viceroy).
• Financial Decentralization (Limited):
  • 1870s: Steps towards financial division between central and provincial governments.
    • Lord Mayo: Fixed sums from central revenues allocated to provinces for specific services (education, police, etc.).
    • Lord Lytton: Transferred additional expenditure heads (land revenue, excise) to provinces.
    • Provinces received a share of income tax, stamps, and excise collected within their borders.
  • 1882: Revenue sources categorized:
    • Central (entirely to center).
    • Provincial (entirely to provinces).
    • Shared between center and provinces.
  • Central government maintained control over provinces (both ultimately reported to Secretary of State).

Local Bodies in British India

Reasons for Establishment

• Financial strain on central government due to over-centralization.
• Need for modern amenities to match growing economic ties with Europe.
• Rising nationalism demanded improvement in basic facilities.
• Countering criticism by using local taxes for local welfare.
• Providing an outlet for Indian participation without threatening British control.

Evolution of Local Government

• 1864-1868: First local bodies formed, mostly nominated members led by district magistrates (seen as additional tax collection tools).
• Mayo’s Resolution (1870):
  • Decentralized finances: Provincial governments received annual grants and could levy local taxes to balance budgets.
  • Local funds allocated for education, sanitation, medical services, and roads.
  • Emphasized local interest and supervision for managing these funds.
• Ripon’s Resolution (1882):
  • Advocated local bodies for improved administration, political education, and self-governance.
  • Urban and rural local bodies established with specific duties and revenue sources.
  • Non-official majority with elected members (if feasible).
  • Non-official chairpersons.
  • Reduced official interference (limited to review and checks).
  • Official sanction required for specific actions (loans, property sales, new taxes, etc.).

Drawbacks of Ripon’s Reforms

• Limited elected representation in most local bodies.
• Restricted franchise.
• District officials continued to head district boards.
• Strict government control with power to suspend or supersede local bodies.
• Bureaucratic resistance to self-government for Indians.
• Lord Curzon (later Viceroy) increased official control over local bodies.

Royal Commission on Decentralization (1908):

• Identified lack of financial resources as a major hurdle.
• Recommendations:
  • Empower village panchayats with judicial functions in petty cases, managing minor village works, schools, etc.
  • Establish sub-district boards with separate duties and revenue sources.
  • Reduce restrictions on taxation and government grants (except for large projects).
  • Municipalities could manage primary education (optional for middle schools) and be relieved of other responsibilities.

Government of India Resolution (1915):

• Mostly ignored the Decentralization Commission’s recommendations.

Resolution of May 1918:

• Aimed to make local bodies more representative with real authority.

Under Dyarchy (1919):

• Local self-government became a transferred subject under Indian ministers.
• Limited progress due to finance remaining a reserved subject (controlled by British).

Simon Commission (1930):

• Noted slow progress of village panchayats except in a few provinces.
• Advocated increased provincial control for efficiency (considered a backward step).
• Criticized reluctance to impose local taxes and decline in financial management since 1919 reforms.

Government of India Act (1935) and After

• Provincial autonomy provided more impetus to local self-government.
• Popular ministries controlled finance, enabling allocation of funds to local bodies.
• Demarcation between provincial and local finance was removed.
• New provincial acts granted more authority to local bodies.
• Financial resources and taxation powers remained limited.
• New restrictions placed on local taxation after 1935.

Post-Independence

• Indian Constitution (Article 40) mandates village panchayats as effective local governance bodies.
• 73rd and 74th amendments aim to strengthen the structure of local self-governing institutions.