Q1. Which of the following accurately reflects the administrative significance of ‘Dyarchy’ as introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919?
- It empowered Indian ministers to control all provincial subjects
- It introduced federalism at the Centre
- It decentralized financial control to provinces
- It created dual government in provinces separating subjects based on responsibility
Correct Option: 4. It created dual government in provinces separating subjects based on responsibility.
Explanation: Dyarchy divided provincial subjects into Transferred (handled by Indian ministers) and Reserved (handled by the British-appointed Governor). It did not apply to central governance and was not federalism. The scheme was unsuccessful and abolished in 1935.
Q2. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, which of the following statements is correct regarding the distribution of powers?
- Residual powers were assigned to the provinces
- Concurrent List subjects were exclusively managed by the Viceroy
- Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists were introduced, with residuary powers resting with the Governor-General
- The princely states had legislative powers over Federal List
Correct Option: 3. Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists were introduced, with residuary powers resting with the Governor-General.
Explanation: The 1935 Act provided a three-fold division of subjects and explicitly granted residuary powers to the Governor-General, reflecting centralized authority despite the federal setup. Princely states were not obligated to join the federation and hence had limited legislative power.
Q3. The idea of establishing an All-India Federation under the 1935 Act failed primarily due to:
- Communal Award creating political instability
- The refusal of Congress to accept the Act
- British withdrawal from the federation proposal
- Princely states not acceding to the federation
Correct Option: 4. Princely states not acceding to the federation.
Explanation: The proposed federation could only be established if princely states voluntarily joined. As they did not accede, the federation never materialized, and the Central dyarchy provisions were never enforced.
Q4. Which of the following was a key difference in the executive authority structure between the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935?
- The 1935 Act abolished the office of Governor-General
- The 1919 Act introduced responsible government at the Centre
- The 1935 Act made provincial ministers responsible to the legislature
- The 1919 Act allowed Indian ministers to control all provincial subjects
Correct Option: 3. The 1935 Act made provincial ministers responsible to the legislature.
Explanation: The 1935 Act introduced “provincial autonomy”, meaning the Governor acted on the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature, a step closer to responsible government. The 1919 Act introduced dyarchy, not full ministerial responsibility.
Q5. Which provision of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, reflects the principle of legal sovereignty transferred to India and Pakistan?
- Abolition of the office of Viceroy
- Empowerment of Constituent Assemblies to frame constitutions and repeal British laws
- Partition of British India into two dominions
- Appointment of Governor-Generals by the British Crown
Correct Option: 2. Empowerment of Constituent Assemblies to frame constitutions and repeal British laws.
Explanation: Legal sovereignty was fully transferred to India and Pakistan by allowing their Constituent Assemblies to make and repeal any British laws, including the Independence Act itself. This marks complete constitutional independence.