The Charter Act of 1853

The Charter Act of 1853
This was the last of the Charter Acts enacted between the year 1793 to 1853.
This Act, for the first time, separated the legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General’s Council.
This Act established the Indian (Central) Legislative Council consisting of 12 members.
The Council of the Governor-General was enlarged for legislative purposes by addition of 6 new members.
The 12 members were
a. The Governor-General,
b. The Commander-in-Chief,
c. 6 legislative members of whom two were English Judges of the Calcutta Supreme Court and
d. The other 4 were officials appointed by the Local Governments of Madras, Bombay, Bengal and Agra.
In this manner the local representation was introduced for the first time in the Indian Legislature.
Legislation was for the first time treated as a special function of the Government requiring special machinery and special process.
But it is very important to note here that no law made by the Council could be promulgated without the assent of the Governor-General who had power to veto any Bill of the Legislative Council.
(A veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation.)
The Indian (Central) Legislative Council functioned as a mini-Parliament, adopting the same procedures as was adopted by the British Parliament in England.
This Act introduced an open competition system for the selection and recruitment of the Civil Servants.
In this way, this Act gave the chance to the Indians as well in the Covenanted Civil Services (Higher Civil Services).
Accordingly the Macaulay Committee (The Committee on the Indian Civil Service) was appointed in the year 1854.
This Act extended the Company’s rule and allowed it to retain the possession of Indian territories on trust for the British Crown.
But this time this Act did not specify any particular period, unlike the previous charters.
This was a clear indication by the British Government that the company’s rule could be terminated at any time by the British Parliament.