GOI ACT, 1935

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935

HISTORY

  • The dissatisfaction of people from Government of India Act, 1919 and their non cooperation to the act led to the appointment of Reform Enquiry Committee in 1924 under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Muddiman. 
  • Majority Commission suggested for fair trail to the act while minority focuses on formation of Royal Commission to suggest constitution reforms. 
  • Royal Commission known as Simon commission was appointed in 1927. 
  • In 1930, it submitted its report suggesting no change in the federal constitution.
  • Nehru committee report was present showing the demand of people of federal and responsible government and also the willingness of Indian princes to join in the federation. 
  • 3 round table conferences were held in England. First two were failed. In the last one, white paper was issued. 
  • The paper provided for federation with autonomous provinces and the creation of responsible government at the centre as well as at the provinces. 
  • The paper arose several controversies and to satisfy them a joint select committee was formed on whose recommendation Government of India Act, 1935 was passed.

STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

Federal Government : 

The executive : Dyarchy at the centre. Executive consists of Governor General (GG) and council of ministers. GG had to act on the advice of the council of ministers except in the matters which are left to the discretion of GG. He could regulate through ordinances ans can even act in times of emergency. GG had to act in two different capacities for Governor provinces as GG and for Indian states as crown's representative. 

The legislature : Consists of the king, represented by GG, and council of states and legislative assembly. Council of states was a permanent house with one third members retiring every third year and the term of legislative assembly was set to be 5 years unless dissolved earlier. Governor general was having the overwhelming power over the legislature. It can restrict legislature from exercising its power by using his power of veto.

The federal court : A federal court was set up in delhi witha chief justice and six other judges who hold the office till the age of 65 years unless removed earlier on the grounds of misbehavior etc. Federal court had original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. The appeal could go to privy council, against the judgement of the federal court given in its original jurisdiction and in any other matter with the leave of the privy council or of the federal court. 

Provincial Government :

The executive : The executive consisted of Governor and his council of ministers. Governor have the powers on the pattern of governor general. 

The legislature : Composition varied from province to province. Out of 11, 6 had bicameral legislature while 5 had unicameral one. In unicameral there is only one house i.e. legislative assembly. In bicameral there are two houses, i.e. legislative council and legislative assembly. Members of legislative assembly were directly elected by people and some were nominated by governor. Duration of assembly was normally 5 years and council was permanent with one third members being renewed every thrid year. Right to vote restricted to economic to education qualifications.

Working of the act : 

This act never came into operation as far as regarding the central government. On the provincial level, elections were held in 1937. Congress formed ministry in 8 out of 11 provinces and worked until 1939 when the world war II broke out and British government unilaterally declared that India was at the war with Germany. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more