Legislative councils were first formed in each province under the Indian Councils Act 1861. Members would include nominees of the Lieutenant Governor who had to receive consent from the governor general of India. Native Indian subjects were a minority in the early councils, which were dominated by Europeans and Anglo-Indians. The Lieutenant Governor could nominate a maximum of 12 members to these councils, which did not have fixed term limits. The councils were merely advisory bodies for the provincial governments.[1]
Under the Indian Councils Act 1892, the legislative councils expanded to 20 members. The councils were empowered to address questions to the executive and discuss budgets without voting. The Lieutenant Governor would nominate 7 members from the recommendations of universities, city corporations, municipalities, district boards and chambers of commerce.[1] The majority of councilors continued to be European and a minority were Indian.[1]
The Morley–Minto reforms were the brainchild of John Morley, the Secretary of State for India, and Earl Minto, the Viceroy of India. The reforms were enacted under the Indian Councils Act 1909, which brought amendments to the Acts of 1861 and 1892. However, they did not go as far as the demands for home rule put forward by the Indian National Congress. Colonial administrators were not keen to grant parliamentary powers to India, possibly for fear of subversion. Britain was also a unitary state and little power was given its regional or colonial units. Under the Act of 1909, the number of seats in legislative councils were expanded.[2] Councils were established at the central level and for gubernatorial provinces. Under the reforms, the majority of councilors would be elected and a minority would be nominated from the government. Property owners, including the zamindars, became voters. Muslims were given the status of a "separate electorate". The Act increased the powers of legislative council to discuss budgets, suggest amendments and vote on limited matters. Representatives from plantations, commercial chambers, universities and landholders were given seats in the assembly. Education, local government, public health, public works, agriculture and cooperative societies were made "transferred subjects" to be administered by the elected representatives. The "reserved subjects" were to be administered by the Executive Council. Reserved subjects included finance, police, land revenue, law, justice and labour.[3][4][1]
Dyarchy (1919–1935)
A dyarchy is a system of shared government. In British India, the British government decided to share responsibilities with legislative councils in major provinces.
As a result of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, the British government decided to gradually grant self-governing institutions to India. The Government of India Act, 1919 established a bicameral central legislature and granted revenue shares to provincial legislative councils. The British government elaborated that the system would continue for at least 10 years until a review. The Swaraj Party and Congress Party, which enjoyed majorities in the councils, boycotted the dyarchy- arguing that the reforms once again did not go far enough.[1] The Congress increased its non-cooperation movement. However, constitutionalists in parties like the All India Muslim League continued to advocate their constituents' interests within the councils.
The Government of India Act 1935 ended dyarchy in the provinces and increased autonomy. Six provinces were given bicameral legislatures.[1] Elections based on separate electorates were held in 1937 and 1946, leading to the formation of provincial ministries (governments) led by a Prime Minister.
The Chamber of Princes was established by a proclamation of King George V in 1920. It was a forum for the rulers of princely states to air their views and engage with the colonial government. It was housed in the Parliament House and its meetings were presided over by the Viceroy of India.
The legislatures of colonial British India were precursors to modern parliamentary democracy in the Indian subcontinent. The notion of parliamentary sovereignty took root in the subcontinent after independence, but has faced many challenges. President's rule is often imposed in Indian states to dismiss legislatures. India underwent a period of emergency rule between 1975 and 1977. Pakistan has seen martial law and military rule between 1958 and 1962, 1969–1973, 1977-1985 and 1999–2002. Bangladesh underwent presidential rule, martial law and semi-presidential government between 1975 and 1990; while emergency rule was imposed between 2007 and 2008.
