Montague Chelmsford Reforms 1919

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, generally known as the Government of India Act of 1919, was a significant step towards Indian self-government under British rule. Names on this Act include Edwin Montagu, who became Secretary of State for India in 1917, and Lord Chelmsford, who was Viceroy of India during that time. The government's attitude was reflected in the July 1918 proposal, known as the Montagu-Chelmsford or Montford amendments, which was an extension of Montagu's declaration from August 1917. The July 8, 1918, publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report served as the foundation for the Government of India Act 1919. These changes marked a watershed in the history of British control in India, together with the Government of India Act of 1919 that came after.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. Historical Background of the Montagu Chelmsford Reforms
2. Important Clauses of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
3. Importance of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
4. Drawbacks of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
5. Results of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Act
6. Conclusion

Also, check Constitutional Law

Historical Background of the Montagu Chelmsford Reforms

• From 1917 to 1922, Edwin Montagu was the Secretary of State for India. He had harsh criticisms of the country's political system.

• Montagu presented the historic August Declaration, often known as the Montagu Declaration, to the British Parliament on August 20, 1917.

• This proclamation advocated for more Indian participation in governance and the creation of institutions capable of self-governance inside India.

• During a 1917 visit, Montagu held talks with Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, among other prominent figures in Indian politics.

• On July 8, 1918, Montagu and the Governor-General of India, Lord Chelmsford, jointly presented a detailed study titled Constitutional Reforms in India, often known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

• This study laid the foundation for the Government of India Act 1919, popularly referred to as the Montford or Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.

• The report was rejected by most Indian politicians.

• October 1st, 1847 born Annie Besant described it as 'unworthy to be presented by England or to be accepted by India'.

• The GOI Act of 1919 included several important changes, such as the creation of a public service commission for the first time, the bicameral legislature with two chambers, the introduction of the diarchy, and the enlargement of the legislative assembly's size.

Important Clauses of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

The British Cabinet endorsed Montagu's scheme and the Government of India Act 1919 was passed. Significant changes were brought about by this legislation, which gave Indians a voice in the legislative process and decentralised administrative authority.

Provincial Government - Dyarchy

Executive

• Dyarchy, or the rule of two, was instituted, consisting of popular ministers and executive council members. The governor was appointed as the province's executive head.

• The list of topics was split into two categories: those that were "transferred," such as education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, excise, etc., and those that were "reserved," such as finance, law and order, irrigation, land revenue, etc.

• Ministers appointed from among the elected members of the legislative council were to manage the "transferred" subjects, while the governor, through his executive council of bureaucrats, was to oversee the "reserved" subjects.

• While the executive councillors were not answerable to the legislature, the ministers were expected to answer to it and resign if a no-confidence resolution was approved against them.

• The governor may also assume control of "transferred" issues if the province's constitutional apparatus fails.

• Regarding "reserved" topics, the governor-general and the secretary of state had limited authority to intervene; nevertheless, about "transferred" subjects, their scope of intervention was limited.

Legislature:

• Provincial Legislative Councils were extended with the requirement that 70% of their members be elected.

• There was increased consolidation of the communal and class electorate system.

• Voting rights were extended to women as well.

• Legislative Councils had the authority to propose laws, but they needed the governor's approval. Lawmakers might enact ordinances and veto legislation.

• The budget might be rejected by the Legislative Councils, but if required, the governor could reinstate it.

• Lawmakers have the right to free speech.

Central Government - Still No Responsibly Managed Government

Executive

• The governor-general was to be the head of state.

• There were to be two administrative lists: the province and the central lists.

• Three Indians were to be included in the viceroy's eight-member governing council.

• Over the "reserved" subjects in the provinces, the governor-general continued to have total authority.

• In addition to certifying measures that the Central Legislature had rejected, the governor-general had the authority to reinstate grant reductions, summon, prorogue, dissolve, and enact ordinances.

Legislature:

• A two-chamber system was implemented. There would be 60 members in the upper chamber, known as the Council of State, (26 nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans, and 1 Sikh) and 144 members in the lower house, known as the Central Legislative Assembly (41 nominated and 103 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, and 20 Special).

• The Central Legislative Assembly had a three-year term, while the Council of State had a five-year tenure and was exclusively composed of men.

• While the lawmakers may make adjournment motions, ask questions, and vote on some parts of the budget, seventy-five per cent of the budget remained unvotable.

• A few Indians made their way onto significant panels, such as the finance committee.

Another modification the study proposed was the establishment of elected local councils in rural regions in 1921. Urban municipal corporations were also made more democratic and "Indianized" in the 1920s.

Examine

• According to the Montagu-Chelmsford report, an evaluation ought to take place ten years later.

• The Simon Commission, led by Sir John Simon, conducted a study and made recommendations for additional constitutional changes.

• The main interests were represented at three round table conferences that took place in London in 1930, 1931, and 1932. Following discussions with the British Government, Gandhi joined the Round Table in 1931.

• The key cause of disagreement between Congress and the British was the retention of separate electorates for each community, which Congress opposed but was allowed by Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award.

• The Montagu-Chelmsford Report's initial push for self-government was continued with the passage of the new Government of India Act 1935.

Importance of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

• Indians were awakened to their responsibilities and were given access to confidential information regarding administration.

• Indians began to feel a feeling of nationalism and awakening as a result, and they made progress towards attaining the objective of Swaraj.

• Voting Rights Extension: Voting regions were extended throughout India, and the significance of voting was realised by the populace.

• Province-Level Self-Government: The Act made Indian province-level self-government possible.

• The Act drastically lowered administrative pressure from the government and allowed the people the authority to administer.

• It equipped Indians to carry out duties in the governance of their provinces.

Drawbacks of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

• Franchise availability was quite restricted.

• Centrally, the governor-general and his executive council were outside the legislature's jurisdiction.

• The way the topics were divided in the centre was insufficient.

• The "importance" of the provinces—for example, the military significance of Punjab and the economic significance of Bombay—was taken into consideration when allocating members to the Central Legislature.

• Dyarchy, or the partition of topics and concurrent administration of two portions, was illogical and hence unfeasible at the province level.

• The lack of authority over money and bureaucracy by the provincial ministers resulted in ongoing conflict between them. On significant issues, ministers were frequently not consulted either. The governor had the authority to overrule them on any issue that the latter deemed unique.

• A significant shift in domestic government occurred in Britain with the passage of the Government of India Act, of 1919, which mandated that the secretary of state henceforth receive funding from the British exchequer.

• While the government was using constitutional revisions as a carrot, it also decided to empower itself with exceptional powers in order to silence any voices that disagreed with the changes.

• The Rowlatt Act was approved in March 1919 against the opposition of every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council.

• Thanks to this Act, the government was able to suspend the right of habeas corpus, which served as the cornerstone of civil freedoms in Britain, and jail anybody without a trial or legal conviction.

Results of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Act

Public Reaction

• Convening in a special session in August 1918 in Bombay, under the chair of Hasan Imam, the Congress rejected the changes as “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory,” and instead called for the establishment of effective self-government.

• Bal Gangadhar Tilak called the changes at Montford "unworthy and disappointing - a sunless dawn."

• "Unworthy of England to offer and India to accept," according to Annie Besant, were the changes.

• The government's measures were supported by seasoned Congressmen under the leadership of Surendranath Banerjea.

Promoted the Power Struggle

• The Act fueled the power struggle among the British and Indian populations alike.

• This led to a significant number of community disturbances, which escalated further between 1922 and 1927.

• Except Madras, the Swaraj Party, which was established in 1923, gained a sizable number of seats in the elections.

• However, using the ministers' salaries, Bombay and the Central Provinces managed to successfully block most other shipments.

• As a result, the governors of both provinces were compelled to end the diarchy system and assume authority over the transferred subjects.

Taking effect with the Rowlatt Act

• In an attempt to placate Indians, the Indian government was prepared to use force.

• The repression of nationalists had persisted throughout the conflict. After being tracked down, the revolutionaries and terrorists were executed and imprisoned.

• Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was one of many other nationalists who had been imprisoned.

• Now, to quell nationalists who would not accept the official reforms, the government chose to empower itself with even more powerful authority, going against the widely acknowledged norms of the rule of law.

• The Rowlatt Act was approved in March 1919 against the opposition of every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council.

• With the passage of this Act, the government gained the right to detain anybody without a judicial trial or conviction.

• The Habeas Corpus privilege, which had served as the cornerstone of civil freedoms in Britain, may be suspended by the government according to the Act.

Conclusion

The Government of India Act of 1935 and the Constitution of India itself were eventually based on the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. These changes gave rise to the fundamental ideas of self-governing, responsible governance, and the federal system. India's constitutional history saw a turning point with the publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report on constitutional revisions. This makes the Montagu Declaration and the MCR on Indian constitutional changes suitable contenders to be called the Magna Carta of contemporary India.