Simon Commission was appointed to look into the working of the—

1. Evolution of Constitutional Acts (1861-1892) (basic)

To understand the evolution of the Indian Constitution, we must start with the aftermath of the 1857 Revolt. The British realized they could no longer rule India without a 'Policy of Association'—bringing Indians into the administration to prevent future uprisings. This led to a series of Acts that gradually shifted the government from a highly centralized, autocratic machine toward a more representative (though still restricted) system.

The Indian Councils Act of 1861 was a landmark because it reversed the trend of centralization that had reached its peak in 1833. It began the process of legislative devolution by restoring the law-making powers of the Madras and Bombay Presidencies Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.526. This Act also introduced the Portfolio System, where members of the Council were put in charge of specific departments, essentially laying the foundation for modern cabinet government in India.

By the 1870s and 80s, the focus shifted toward financial decentralization. Under Lord Mayo (1870), provincial governments were given more control over local services like education, sanitation, and medical relief Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528. However, the real push for reform came from the newly formed Indian National Congress, which demanded greater Indian representation. This pressure culminated in the Indian Councils Act of 1892.

Feature	Indian Councils Act, 1861	Indian Councils Act, 1892
Representation	Nomination of non-officials (Raja of Benaras, Maharaja of Patiala, Sir Dinkar Rao).	Introduced indirect elections through "nomination on recommendation" by local bodies Laxmikanth, M., Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.5.
Legislative Powers	Very limited; could only discuss matters brought before them.	Members could now discuss the Budget and address questions to the Executive D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.3.
Decentralization	Legislative powers returned to Madras and Bombay.	Allowed non-official majorities in provincial councils, though kept an official majority at the center.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.526; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528; Laxmikanth, M., Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.5; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.3

2. Government of India Act 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms) (basic)

The Government of India Act 1909, popularly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, was a pivotal moment in India's constitutional journey. Named after Lord Morley (the Secretary of State for India) and Lord Minto (the then Viceroy), these reforms were designed with a dual purpose: to satisfy the 'Moderates' within the Indian National Congress and to provide concessions to the newly formed Muslim League, effectively utilizing a 'divide and rule' strategy M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.5.

The most defining and controversial feature of this Act was the introduction of separate electorates for Muslims. Under this system, certain seats in the councils were reserved exclusively for Muslims, and only Muslim voters could vote for these candidates. This move granted a separate constitutional identity to the Muslim community, a step often criticized for sowing the seeds of communalism in Indian politics History, Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.76. Because of this, Lord Minto came to be known as the 'Father of Communal Electorate'.

Structurally, the Act significantly increased the size of the Legislative Councils at both the Central and Provincial levels. For instance, the number of members in the Imperial Legislative Council was raised from 16 to 60 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 26, p.277. Furthermore, it empowered members to participate more actively by allowing them to ask supplementary questions and move resolutions on the budget. Notably, it also broke the 'glass ceiling' of the executive branch by allowing an Indian to join the Viceroy’s Executive Council for the first time — Satyendra Prasad Sinha was appointed as the Law Member.

Feature	Provisions of the 1909 Act
Official Name	Indian Councils Act 1909
Key Personalities	John Morley (SOS) and Lord Minto (Viceroy)
Communal Representation	Introduced separate electorates for Muslims
Executive Inclusion	S.P. Sinha became the first Indian in the Viceroy's Executive Council
Electoral Method	Introduced the elective principle (though indirect and limited)

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Historical Background, p.5; A Brief History of Modern India, Rajiv Ahir, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.277; History, Class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.76

3. Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) (intermediate)

The Government of India Act 1919, popularly known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, marked a significant shift in British policy. Following the 1917 August Declaration which promised the gradual development of self-governing institutions, this Act was the first concrete step toward introducing responsible government in India. At its heart, the Act sought to increase Indian participation while maintaining British control over vital interests. One of the most critical structural changes was the introduction of Bicameralism at the Center (a Council of State and a Central Legislative Assembly) and the formal division of administrative subjects into Central and Provincial categories D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.5.

The most distinctive feature of the 1919 Act was Dyarchy (meaning 'double government') in the eight provinces. Under this system, provincial subjects were split into two lists: Reserved and Transferred. The Reserved subjects—which included the 'hard' powers of the state—were administered by the Governor and his Executive Council without any accountability to the local legislature. In contrast, Transferred subjects—often called 'nation-building' departments—were managed by the Governor acting with Ministers who were responsible to the Legislative Council D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.5. While this gave Indians their first taste of executive power, the Governor retained veto powers and could overrule ministers, often making the Indian representatives feel the system was a shadow of true democracy Tamil Nadu State Board Class XII, History, Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.44.

Feature	Reserved Subjects	Transferred Subjects
Administration	Governor + Executive Council	Governor + Indian Ministers
Accountability	Not responsible to the Legislature	Responsible to the Legislature
Examples	Police, Justice, Land Revenue, Finance	Education, Health, Local Self-Gov, Agriculture

Beyond Dyarchy, the Act significantly expanded the Communal Electorates. While the 1909 reforms had granted separate electorates to Muslims, the 1919 Act extended this principle to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans. Furthermore, the Act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission and mandated that a Statutory Commission be appointed ten years after the Act’s commencement to inquire into its working and report on the progress of the constitutional system—a clause that eventually led to the controversial Simon Commission.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.5; Indian Polity, World Constitutions, p.763; History Class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.44; Themes in Indian History Part III (NCERT), Framing the Constitution, p.326

4. The Swarajists and the Demand for Constitutional Revision (intermediate)

Concept: The Swarajists and the Demand for Constitutional Revision

5. Alternative Visions: The Nehru Report (exam-level)

In the late 1920s, the Indian national movement hit a turning point. The British Secretary of State, Lord Birkenhead, famously challenged Indians to produce a constitution that could gain the consensus of all political parties in India. He believed Indians were too divided by religion and caste to ever agree on a single framework. Indian leaders accepted this challenge, leading to the All Parties Conference in early 1928. This committee, chaired by Motilal Nehru, produced the Nehru Report (August 1928), which stands as the first major attempt by Indians to draft a comprehensive constitutional scheme for their own country Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p. 361.

The report was a collaborative effort featuring diverse voices like Tej Bahadur Sapru (Liberal), Subhash Chandra Bose (Congress radical), and representatives of the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha. While it was remarkably progressive, it also exposed the internal fault lines of the movement. The most significant internal debate was over the goal of the constitution: the majority, led by the elder Nehru, favored Dominion Status (self-rule within the British Empire, similar to Canada), while younger leaders like Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru demanded Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p. 361.

The recommendations of the Nehru Report were visionary, anticipating many features of the modern Indian Constitution. Most notably, it rejected separate electorates in favor of joint electorates with reserved seats for minorities, a move intended to foster national unity rather than communal division. It also proposed 19 Fundamental Rights, including universal adult suffrage and equal rights for women, which were radical ideas for that era Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p. 365.

Feature	Nehru Report Recommendation
Form of Government	Responsible government at the Centre and in Provinces; Secular state.
Electoral System	Joint electorates with reservation for minorities (rejection of separate electorates).
Territorial Basis	Formation of provinces on a linguistic basis.
Rights	19 Fundamental Rights including Universal Adult Suffrage and the right to form unions.

Ultimately, the British ignored the report, and the communal consensus began to fray when Muhammad Ali Jinnah proposed his 'Fourteen Points' as an alternative. However, the legacy of the Nehru Report is profound: it proved that Indians could articulate a sophisticated constitutional vision, and many of its provisions were later mirrored in the Constitution of 1950 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 26, p. 611.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 18: Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.361; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 18: Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.365; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.611

6. The Appointment of the Simon Commission (exam-level)

The Indian Statutory Commission, more popularly known as the Simon Commission, was a seven-member body appointed by the British government on November 8, 1927. Its appointment was not a random administrative act but a statutory requirement. Under Section 84A of the Government of India Act, 1919, the British Parliament was mandated to appoint a Royal Commission ten years after the Act's commencement to review the working of the constitutional system and the progress of the governance scheme D. D. Basu, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.7. While the review was technically due in 1929, it was expedited by two years by the then-Conservative government in Britain under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin.

The primary mandate of the commission, headed by Sir John Simon, was to assess the effectiveness of Dyarchy (the dual government system introduced in provinces) and determine whether India was ready for further constitutional reforms Rajiv Ahir, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.357. The decision to advance the date was deeply political: the Conservative government, led by figures like Lord Birkenhead, feared a defeat by the Labour Party in the upcoming British general elections. They were unwilling to leave the sensitive task of determining the future of India—the British Empire's most prized colony—to what they considered the "irresponsible hands" of a Labour administration Rajiv Ahir, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.358.

What made the commission particularly controversial and a focal point of Indian nationalist anger was its all-white composition. Despite the commission's task being the deliberation of India's political future, not a single Indian was included in its membership. This exclusion was seen as a direct insult to the principle of self-determination, which the British had earlier hinted at during the 1917 August Declaration Rajiv Ahir, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.509. The commission’s eventual report in 1930, which recommended the abolition of dyarchy and the extension of responsible government in provinces, served as the foundational document for the subsequent Round Table Conferences and the eventual Government of India Act, 1935 Rajiv Ahir, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.511.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.7; A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), SPECTRUM, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.357-358; A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), SPECTRUM, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.509-511

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the timeline of constitutional reforms, you can see how the Simon Commission (officially the Indian Statutory Commission) serves as a bridge between two major legislative eras. The Government of India Act, 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, introduced the complex system of Diarchy. Crucially, this 1919 Act included a specific clause mandate: a royal commission was to be appointed ten years after its commencement to report on its working and evaluate the progress of responsible government in India.

To arrive at the correct answer, (C) Government of India Act, 1919, you must focus on the statutory requirement for review. Although the commission was appointed two years ahead of schedule in 1927 by Lord Birkenhead, its primary mission remained the assessment of the 1919 reforms. Think of the Simon Commission not as a new beginning, but as a performance audit of the existing 1919 framework. As detailed in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum), this evaluation was the necessary precursor to the Round Table Conferences and the eventual drafting of future legislation.

UPSC frequently uses the Government of India Act, 1935 (Option D) as a trap. Do not confuse the cause with the effect; the 1935 Act was the result of the Simon Commission’s report and subsequent deliberations, not the subject of its investigation. Similarly, the Acts of 1892 and 1909 (Options A and B) represent earlier stages of council expansion that had already been superseded by the time the commission was formed in 1927. Focusing on the ten-year review cycle inherent in the 1919 Act will always lead you to the right conclusion.