The Constitution of India, which came into force on 26 January 1950, did not emerge in a constitutional vacuum. Several institutional and administrative features of the Constitution had antecedents in the Government of India Act, 1935, the last major constitutional statute enacted by the British Parliament for governing India.

The similarities are significant, but they should not be overstated. The Constitution transformed the colonial framework into a democratic, republican and rights-based constitutional order. At the same time, the Constituent Assembly retained, adapted or expanded several institutional arrangements that had already existed under the 1935 Act.

Federal structure
Both the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution of India provide for a division of legislative powers between the Union and the provinces or states.

The 1935 Act divided legislative subjects between the Federal and Provincial Legislatures through three lists. The Constitution retained this basic architecture through the Union List, State List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.

There was, however, a fundamental difference. The federal scheme under the 1935 Act was designed within a colonial system in which substantial powers remained with the British Crown and the Governor-General. The Constitution placed the federal structure within a sovereign democratic republic.

Parliamentary institutions and legislatures
The 1935 Act provided for legislatures at the federal and provincial levels, including bicameralism at the Centre and in certain provinces.

The Constitution retained the principle of a bicameral Union Legislature, consisting of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, while also providing for bicameral legislatures in states where Parliament has so provided under the Constitution.

The similarity, therefore, is institutional rather than constitutional in character. Under the 1935 Act, ultimate authority remained with the British Crown; under the Constitution, sovereignty rests with the people of India.

Executive authority
The office of the Governor-General under the 1935 Act and the office of the President under the Constitution are sometimes compared because both occupy the position of constitutional head at the Union level.

But the comparison has important limits.

The Governor-General represented the British Crown and possessed extensive discretionary and reserve powers. The President of India is an elected constitutional head functioning within a parliamentary democracy and ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Thus, the Constitution did not simply replace the Governor-General with the President; it fundamentally altered the constitutional basis and democratic accountability of the office.

Public Service Commissions
One of the clearest institutional continuities is the Public Service Commission.

The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions. It assigned them functions relating to recruitment, examinations, promotions and other matters concerning public services.

The Constitution retained this institution in the form of the Union Public Service Commission and State Public Service Commissions under Articles 315 to 323.

This is a good example of an administrative institution inherited from the colonial constitutional framework but placed within a democratic constitutional order.

Emergency provisions
The 1935 Act contained provisions enabling the central authority to assume wider powers during an emergency. For example, Section 102 empowered the Federal Legislature, following a proclamation of emergency by the Governor-General, to legislate on matters otherwise falling within the Provincial Legislative List.

The Constitution similarly contains emergency provisions. Article 356 enables the President, in specified circumstances, to assume certain functions of a state government when constitutional machinery in the state has failed.

The constitutional context, safeguards and judicial interpretation are very different, but the historical continuity in the idea of extraordinary central intervention during a constitutional crisis is unmistakable.

Administrative and judicial institutions
The 1935 Act established or provided for a number of institutions that influenced the constitutional and administrative architecture of independent India, including Public Service Commissions and the Federal Court.

The Federal Court, established under the 1935 framework, was an important predecessor to the Supreme Court of India. The Constitution subsequently created an independent Supreme Court as the country's highest constitutional court.

Similarly, much of the administrative machinery inherited at Independence continued under the Constitution, although its legal basis and relationship with democratic government were fundamentally altered.

What the Constitution did not simply inherit
It is important to draw a line between institutional continuity and constitutional similarity.

The Government of India Act, 1935 did not provide a catalogue of Fundamental Rights comparable to Part III of the Constitution. Nor did it contain the Constitution's Directive Principles of State Policy.

These are major innovations of the Constitution and reflect the transformation from colonial governance to a democratic constitutional republic.

Likewise, the principle of separation of powers should not be described as identical in the two instruments. India's Constitution establishes separate constitutional functions for the legislature, executive and judiciary, but it follows a parliamentary system rather than a rigid separation of powers.

The Constitution also introduced universal adult suffrage, Fundamental Rights, judicial review, an independent judiciary, constitutional remedies, Directive Principles, a republican form of government and a far broader democratic framework.

Reservation and representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
There is nevertheless an important historical continuity in the treatment of disadvantaged communities.

The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for reserved representation in legislatures for what were then described as the "Depressed Classes", following the political developments surrounding the Poona Pact. The arrangement operated through reserved seats within a joint-electorate framework rather than through the separate electorate originally contemplated under the Communal Award.

The Constitution carried forward and substantially developed the principle of political representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Articles 330 and 332 provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies respectively.

The constitutional framework went much further than legislative representation. Article 16 permits special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment, while Article 46 directs the State to promote their educational and economic interests and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.

Over time, constitutional amendments and legislation have further developed the reservation framework, including provisions concerning reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and reservation for economically weaker sections.

It is therefore more accurate to describe the Constitution as building upon and transforming an earlier system of community representation, rather than simply reproducing the reservation provisions of the 1935 Act.

The larger constitutional transformation
The similarities between the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution of India are therefore real, particularly in areas such as federal distribution of legislative powers, legislative institutions, public services, emergency powers and certain administrative arrangements.

But the similarities should be understood in historical context.

The 1935 Act was a colonial statute enacted by the British Parliament to govern India while retaining ultimate imperial authority. The Constitution was framed by India's Constituent Assembly and established a sovereign democratic republic founded on popular sovereignty, Fundamental Rights, universal adult franchise and an independent judiciary.

The Constituent Assembly did not have to discard every existing institution merely because it had operated under colonial rule. Where an institutional arrangement was considered administratively useful, it could be retained and placed within an entirely different constitutional framework.

Where does the reservation system stand today?
The Constitution's original reservation provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in legislatures were initially intended to operate for a limited period, but Parliament has repeatedly extended them through constitutional amendments. The present Constitution continues to provide for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The Constitution currently provides for 84 seats for Scheduled Castes and 47 seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha, subject to the constitutional provisions governing delimitation and related matters.

Reservation in public employment and education has also evolved considerably beyond the framework of 1935. The Constitution now contains provisions relating to SCs, STs, socially and educationally backward classes and, following the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, Economically Weaker Sections.

The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 has additionally provided for reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Its implementation is linked to delimitation following publication of the relevant figures from the first census taken after commencement of the amendment.

The present position therefore illustrates the larger constitutional journey: India inherited some institutional foundations from the Government of India Act, 1935, but the Constitution progressively reshaped and expanded them to reflect the democratic, egalitarian and republican aspirations of independent India.