Meaning of Provincial Autonomy mentioned in the Act of 1935: 

Provincial autonomy was the most important characteristic of Government of India Act of 1935. There may be two meanings of provincial autonomy:

1. The provinces should have the right and power of working independently in their region, i.e. the provinces should be free from external control in their respective area, 

2. Establishment of responsible governance in the provinces. In other words, the governance of the provinces must be kept with a cabinet of popular ministers, who are responsible and liable towards the legislature as well as towards the public. The diarchy system was introduced in the provinces and they were given a form of autonomous political unit. They were made free from central interference. They were provided legal, administrative and financial rights on 54 subjects of the provincial list. It was known as provincial autonomy.

Restrictions that made Provincial Autonomy Weak: 

The provincial autonomy established by the Government of India Act, 1935 was far from reality. Several internal and external restrictions were imposed on it that made it weak. The chief restrictions are given below:

(A) External restrictions on provincial autonomy: 

Several arrangements of central interference on provincial autonomy were made under the Government of India Act, 1935, while it should have been free from any boundation. The main external restrictions on provincial autonomy are given below:

1. Declaration of emergency: 

Under Section 102 of the Act of 1935, the governor – general could declare emergency in specific conditions of crisis, serious internal disorder or unrest and real or probable danger of wars. After declaration of emergency, federal legislature could make laws related to provincial subjects. 

2. Control of center on provinces: 

Under Section 156, the governor – general could release the advisory to provincial governance on peace and safety. Under these circumstances, the governor could declare the failure of constitutional system under Section 93, and the entire provincial governance would come under him. 

3. Governor – General’s control over provincial laws: 

Some special type of bills could not be approved in the assembly without perpermission of the governor-general. 

4. Governor kept the bills safe for the acceptance of governor – general, approved by provincial legislature: 

The governor kept the bills safe for the acceptance of governor-general, which, the provincial legislature had already approved. The governor – general could also keep these types of bills safe for the approval of the British emperor through India secretary. 

5. Discretionary Powers of governor – general: 

To fulfill these rights and liabilities, governor general could interfere in the working of the provinces and give directions to ministers. . 

(B) Internal restrictions on provincial autonomy: 

The provincial governance was also not free internally. The following internal limitations and boundations were imposed over provincial autonomy: 

1. The constitutional role of governor in provinces was greater than that of constitutional president: 

For real provincial autonomy, governor should play a role of constitutional president, but the governor was made its real head. Entire province was under his hold. He had the right to pass bill, refuse a bill approved by the provincial assembly and to keep it safe for the acceptance of the governor – general. 

2. Unlimited financial powers of governor: 

The governor was given unlimited financial powers. The provincial budget was formed under his guidelines. He had the right or liability to make a bill passed in the assembly. The approval or refusal or an amendment of a bill passed by provincial legislature, was dependent on the wish of the governor. 

3. Governor’s control on the ministers: 

The governor had a right to appoint or to dismiss the ministers or to distribute the departments among them. The Governor also called the meeting of cabinet. These powers of the governor made the provincial autonomy weak. 

4. Non – cooperation of civil servants with ministers: 

The behaviour of civil officials was non – cooperative with the ministers, which was unfavorable for provincial autonomy. In this way, it can be said that provincial autonomy was a mere pretense. So there was a great dissatisfaction in the Indians for it. For the implementation of real provincial autonomy, they organised several movements.