The Government of India Act (1858) and The Indian Councils Act (1861) | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Background of Government of India Act 

• The Charter Act of 1853 stipulated that the British East India Company was to hold the territories and revenues in India in trust for the Crown, with no specified time period.
• This act opened the possibility for the Crown to take over administration from the Company at any time.
• The 1857 Revolt highlighted the need for a change in governance and increased awareness among the English public about India.
• There was a growing demand for the end of the Company's political power.
• Since 1833, English traders and settlers in India had developed a vested interest in the region and complained about the Company's neglect.
• There was growing pressure in both Britain and India for the abolition of Company rule and the establishment of Crown rule.
• Critics like Lord Palmerston pointed out the irresponsibility of the Company’s rule and the complexity of its Double Government system as major flaws.
• Disraeli and Lord Derby proposed a new India Bill, which faced ridicule from Palmerston.
• However, the Act for the Better Government of India was passed and received Royal assent on August 2, 1858.
• This act established direct Crown governance in India.
• This act coincided with Queen Victoria’s declaration in 1858, marking a significant shift in governance.

Provisions of the Act

• Transferred powers from the East India Company to the Crown: The territories in India were vested in the Queen, and all property of the East India Company was transferred to the Crown. The Crown assumed the Company's responsibilities related to treaties and contracts, and India was to be governed in the Queen's name.

• Governance Structure: India was to be governed by the sovereign through the Secretary of State for India, assisted by a Council of 15 members. The Secretary of State replaced the President of the Board of Control and became the primary authority for India, subordinate to the Cabinet.
• Council Composition: The Council consisted of 15 members, with 8 appointed by the Crown and 7 selected from the former Court of Directors. Members had to have at least 10 years of service in India and could only be removed by petition to the Crown by both Houses of Parliament.
• Advisory Role: The Council was advisory, with most initiatives and final decisions resting with the Secretary of State.
• Abolition of Double Government: The Act abolished the system of 'Double Government' established in 1784, transferring powers from the Court of Directors and the Board of Control to the Secretary of State.
• Appointment of Officials: The Crown was empowered to appoint the Governor-General and the Governors of the Presidencies. The Governor-General, now titled Viceroy, became the direct representative of the Crown, retaining all powers and being answerable only to the Secretary of State.
• Indian Civil Service: The Act provided for the creation of an Indian Civil Service under the control of the Secretary of State. Appointments were to be made by open competition, maintaining the recruitment examination introduced in 1853.
• Legal Status of Secretary of State: The Secretary of State for India was declared a corporate body, capable of suing and being sued in England and India.

Significance

• The Government of India Act, 1858 marked a significant shift in Indian history by ending the Company rule and establishing the British Raj. This period lasted until the Partition of India in August 1947, when the Raj was divided into the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India.
• The Act of 1858 represented more of a formal shift than a substantive change. The Crown had been gradually increasing its control over the East India Company since the start of its territorial rule. A series of statutes from 1784 to 1853 had already weakened the powers of the Court of Directors, making their role mostly nominal.
• Before the Act of 1858, India was already being governed by rules set by the British Parliament. The British officials, including the Governor-General, were nominally accountable to the Company but were, in reality, answerable to the British Cabinet and Parliament.
• The Charter Acts of 1813 and 1833 had affirmed the Crown’s sovereignty over Company territories. The Charter Act of 1853 stated that the Company held Indian territories and revenues in trust for the Crown.
• Under the Act of 1853, the number of Directors was reduced from 24 to 18, with 6 being Crown nominees. The Directors lost their patronage powers, marking the Company’s decline as a political force.
• The Company had ceased to be a political power before 1858, and the Act merely formalized this transition. It was more about continuing existing practices than introducing new administrative changes.
• The shift from Company to Crown rule symbolized a rejection of earlier liberal reforms and an endorsement of British permanence in India. Following the revolt, British policy became more cautious and conservative.
• British authorities began to assert their racial superiority and distanced themselves from Indian society, establishing a more authoritarian regime. Indians were seen as tradition-bound and incapable of reform, and local power elites like the zamindars and aristocrats were relied upon for administration, laying the groundwork for a more authoritarian Raj.

Slackening of the control of Parliament

Control and Interest of Parliament Over Indian Affairs:

• Parliament's control and interest over Indian affairs weakened after 1858, despite appearing strong at that time.

Parliamentary Authority:

• When the Board of Control and the Court of Directors held power, Parliament asserted its authority.
• However, once the Secretary of State for India took over, Parliament felt satisfied and less inclined to exercise continuous control over Indian administration.

Competence of Secretaries of State:

• The Secretaries of State for India were more capable than the previous Board of Control members.
• Improved communication between India and England allowed for quicker access to Indian news.
• Parliament became content, allowing the Secretary of State to act independently.

Political Focus in Britain:

• From 1857 to 1915, British politicians were preoccupied with domestic issues, lacking the time or interest to focus on Indian matters.
• The complexity and scale of Indian problems made them less appealing for pursuit.
• With the Indian Civil Service efficiently managing administration, there was little reason for British criticism.

Theory of Trusting Local Administrators:

• Trust in local administrators became the prevailing theory, with the Secretary of State supporting the Governor-General, who in turn backed the Governors, and so forth.

The Indian Councils Act 1861

• The Indian Councils Act of 1861, passed by the UK Parliament, revamped India's executive council to function like a cabinet with a portfolio system.

Background

• The 1858 Act focused on the Home Government without altering India's administrative structure.
• Post-1857 Revolt, there was a strong demand for constitutional changes in India to improve connections with Indian public opinion.
• Sir Bartle Frere emphasized the need for a deliberative council to prevent future unrest.
• Syed Ahmed Khan noted that the lack of communication between rulers and the ruled contributed to the 1857 crisis.
• Despite these concerns, involving Indians in legislation was postponed until stability was restored.

Other Reasons for Constitutional Changes:

• The Charter Act of 1833 had centralized legislation, giving the Central Legislative Council sole power to legislate for the entire country.
• This centralization was problematic due to the Council's ignorance of local conditions and its inability to establish common legislative standards.
• The Legislative Council, established by the Charter Act of 1853, faced several issues:
• It functioned more like a debating society than an effective legislative body.
• It assumed the roles and privileges of a representative body, causing delays with parliamentary procedures.
• It sometimes acted independently, which conflicted with the Home Government's wishes.
• It embarrassed the Indian Government by requesting secret information.
• These shortcomings prompted the authorities in England to seek corrections.
• After discussions between the Home Government and the Government of India, the Indian Councils Act was enacted in 1861.

 Provisions of the Act

• Changes in the Governor General’s Council: The act made significant changes to the composition of the Governor General's Council for executive and legislative purposes.
• Executive Functions: The Executive Council was expanded to include a fifth member responsible for law. Over time, a sixth member for public works was added.
• Empowerment of the Governor-General: The Governor-General was given the authority to create rules for the efficient transaction of business within the Council. This led to the introduction of the portfolio system, allowing each member to manage specific departments.
• Cabinet Government Foundation: The new system laid the groundwork for Cabinet Government in India, with each administrative branch having an official head. Routine matters were handled by the member in charge, while significant issues were presented to the Governor-General for consultation.
• Legislative Functions: The Viceroy’s Executive Council was expanded to include additional members for legislative purposes. These members, nominated by the Governor-General, were required to be non-officials and held office for two years. However, their functions were limited to legislation, with no control over administration or finance.
• Ordinance Power: The Governor-General was granted the power to issue ordinances in emergencies without the Legislative Council's concurrence, with a maximum duration of six months.
• Restoration of Legislative Powers: The Indian Councils Act 1861 restored legislative powers to the governor-in-councils of Madras and Bombay, although laws required the Governor General's assent. Certain matters needed prior approval from the Governor General.
• Formation of Legislative Councils: The act allowed the Governor General to form legislative councils in other provinces and create new provinces for legislative purposes. Legislative Councils were established in Bengal, the North Western Provinces, and the Punjab during the 1860s and 1890s.

Significance

• The Act gradually built and strengthened the mechanical framework of the government by:
• Bringing the three separate presidencies into a common system.
• Asserted the legislative and administrative authority of the Governor General in Council over all provinces and their inhabitants.
• Recognizing local needs and welcoming local knowledge by creating or recreating local councils with some non-official and even Indian members for advisory purposes.
• Laid the groundwork for legislative devolution by vesting legislative powers in the Governments of Bombay and Madras and providing for similar legislative councils in other provinces.
• The Act was seen as a significant experiment by Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India, who believed it was necessary due to the changing nature of India and the need for a modified government.

Criticism

• The Act of 1861 did not clearly define the jurisdiction of the Central and Local legislatures, unlike federal constitutions.
• The Governor General’s Council could legislate for all of India, and the provincial council for the whole province, with the requirement of obtaining the Governor General’s sanction for certain matters.
• The Act did little to enhance the influence of Indians in the legislative council, where their role was limited to advice and no financial discussions were allowed.
• The legislative councils were not considered true legislatures in terms of composition or functions.
• The councils were merely committees for law-making, assisting the executive government in legislation.
• Official members were in the majority, ensuring the success of official legislation.
• Nominated non-official members were in a minority and often reluctant to attend council sessions.
• The councils' functions were limited to legislation, with no power to inquire into grievances, call for information, or examine executive conduct.
• Administration and finance matters were under the control of wholly official Executive Councils.
• The Act did not establish representative government in India.
• Sir Charles Wood clarified that there was no intention to introduce a representative law-making body in the normal sense.
• He compared the role of the proposed Legislative Councils to that of the durbar of an Indian ruler, where nobles offered advice but the ruler was not bound by it.