Which statement is true regarding 1935 Act ? (a) Anglo-Indian, Indian Christian, Sikh Constituencies were created. (b) Establishment of Federal Court. (c) Creation of Indian High Commissioner. (d) Rajgopalachari stated that 'Worse than dyarchy' regarding the law.

Which statement is true regarding 1935 Act ? (a) Anglo-Indian, Indian Christian, Sikh Constituencies were created. (b) Establishment of Federal Court. (c) Creation of Indian High Commissioner. (d) Rajgopalachari stated that 'Worse than dyarchy' regarding the law. Correct Answer <span style="">(a), (b), (d) statements are correct.</span>

The correct answer is (a), (b), (d) statements are correct.

Key PointsGovernment of India 1935 was a second milestone towards a completely responsible government in India. It had the following provisions -

  • The electoral provision of act create separate constituencies for Anglo-Indian, Indian Christian, Sikh Constituencies were created. Hence statement a is correct.
  • Provided for the establishment of the Federal Court (NOT Supreme Court) which was consequently set up in 1937. Hence statement b is correct.
  • Rajagopalachari declared that the government of India Act was worse than the diarchy system. Hence statement d is correct.
  • The Government of India Act of 1919 provided for the creation of a new office of the High Commissioner of India. Hence statement c is incorrect.
  • It provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. However, this provision never came into force.
  • It abolished dyarchy in the provinces (brought by Government of India Act 1919) and introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ in its place. 
  • It provided for the adoption of dyarchy at the Centre. However, this provision never came into being.
  • It introduced bicameralism in six out of eleven provinces.
  • ​Provided for the establishment of Reserve Bank of India.
  • Provided for the establishment of Federal Public Service Commission, Provisional Public Service Commission, and Joint Public Service Commission for two or more states.

Related Questions

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.