legislative field were extensive.
    • He could refuse permission to introduce certain bills where such
        advance permission was necessary.
    • If the legislature rejected a bill recommended by him, he could certify
        its being essential ‘for the safety, tranquillity and interests’ of British
    • The only check on him was that such Acts were required to be laid
        before the Parliament for at least 8 days prior to their receiving Royal
    • He could refuse assent to bills passed by the legislature whenever he
        deemed it necessary.
    • In financial matters, he could restore, if necessary, any grant rejected
        or cut by the Assembly.
Purpose of Diarchy Since, in terms of the August Declaration, there was to
be a gradual transfer of authority to Indian hands, the mode and measure of
such transfer required to be worked out. Again, to the extent that transfer of
responsibility in the provincial sphere as a whole was considered premature,
a system of Diarchy was established.
Contribution of Curtis and His Round Table Group A signal
contribution in working out the details was made by Lionel George Curtis
and his Round Table group and finds its fullest elaboration in his work
entitled Diarchy (1920). Under it, ministers responsible to the legislature held
charge of such subjects as were ‘transferred’ to popular control, while the
governor and his councillors were to be in charge of ‘reserved’ subjects for
which they were responsible to Parliament.
Division of Provincial Subjects
    •   ‘Transferred’ subjects included: local self-government, medical
        administration, education other than European and Anglo-Indian,
        agriculture, fisheries, co-operative societies, excise, the development
        of industries and religious endowments.