Historical Background: Company rule and the Charter Acts

The earlier Charter Acts renewed the Company's charter for a fixed term of twenty years: 1793, 1813 and 1833 each fixed one. The Charter Act of 1853 allowed the Company to keep the Indian territories in trust for the British Crown but did not specify any period. This meant Parliament could end Company rule at any time, and it did so five years later through the Government of India Act, 1858. The 1853 Act is also remembered as the last of the Charter Acts.

Lord Canning became Governor-General in 1856 under the Company. When the Government of India Act, 1858 transferred power to the Crown, the Governor-General was given the additional title of Viceroy, and Canning became the first Viceroy. He read out Queen Victoria's Proclamation in November 1858. Lord Dalhousie (1848–56) was his predecessor and never held the title of Viceroy. Lord Elgin (1862–63) and Sir John Lawrence (1864–69) came after Canning.

Both statements are correct. Statement 1: the Charter Act of 1833 made the Governor-General of Bengal the Governor-General of India and gave the Governor-General in Council exclusive legislative power for the whole of British India. Laws made from then on were called Acts, not Regulations. Statement 2: a law member was added to the Council and the first Law Commission was set up in 1834 under Lord Macaulay. Its draft Indian Penal Code was ready by 1837, though it was enacted only in 1860. Hence both.

Statement 1 is correct: the Charter Act of 1833 ended the Company's commercial activities, and it became a purely administrative body holding its territories in trust for the Crown. Statement 2 is correct: as the final step towards centralisation, the Governors of Bombay and Madras lost their legislative powers and the Governor-General of India got exclusive legislative power for the whole of British India. Statement 3 is incorrect: the separation of the legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General's Council came twenty years later, with the Charter Act of 1853, which added six legislative councillors. Hence 1 and 2 only.

Statement 1 is correct: Pitt's Act was the first to describe the Company's territories as the 'British possessions in India'. Statement 2 is correct: the new Board of Control was given power to supervise and direct the civil and military government and the revenues. Statement 3 is incorrect: the Court of Directors was not abolished. It kept managing the commercial affairs, and that is exactly why the arrangement became a double government. Both the Court of Directors and the Board of Control were abolished only by the Government of India Act, 1858. Hence 1 and 2 only.

Options (a), (b) and (d) are provisions of the Charter Act of 1813. It opened India to Christian missionaries, it set aside funds for the promotion of learning and Western education, and it allowed the local governments to tax persons subject to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The same Act also ended the Company's trade monopoly in India except in tea and the trade with China, and it asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown. Option (c) is the odd one out: taking away the legislative powers of the Bombay and Madras Governors was part of the centralisation brought by the Charter Act of 1833.

Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct; statement 4 is incorrect. The Charter Act of 1833 said Indians should not be debarred from any office under the Company and tried to bring in open competition, but the provision was negated after the Court of Directors objected (statements 1 and 2). Open competition actually came with the Charter Act of 1853, and the Macaulay Committee was set up in 1854 to work it out (statement 3). Statement 4 is wrong: for decades the examination was held only in London, which put Indians at a disadvantage. It began to be held in India also only from 1922, after the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms (UPSC's own history of the Commission). Hence only three.

Statement 1 is correct: the Charter Act of 1793 charged the salaries of the members and staff of the Board of Control to the Indian revenues, a practice that lasted for over a century. Statement 2 is incorrect: when the Crown took over in 1858, the cost of the new Secretary of State and his Council of India also fell on Indian revenues. Indian nationalists long objected to this 'Home charge'. Only the Government of India Act, 1919 provided that the Secretary of State's salary would be paid out of the British exchequer. Hence 1 only.