Previous Year Question

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms did not recommend universal voting rights to all women above the age of 21. The Southborough Franchise Committee, which worked out the franchise arrangements in 1918–19, did not accept universal female franchise. Indeed, the electorate was highly restricted even for men and depended on property, taxation and other qualifications.

Women were subsequently enfranchised gradually at the provincial level, but these voting rights remained subject to age along with property, marital status, educational and other qualifications. According to IGNOU, during the first phase of the female franchise movement from 1917 to 1928, only a small fraction of women could satisfy the restrictive conditions and exercise the vote. Therefore, the expression “all women above the age of 21” makes Statement 1 clearly incorrect.

Statement 2 is correct. The Government of India Act, 1935 provided specifically for legislative seats for women. The Fifth Schedule of the Act expressly refers to “a seat to be filled by a woman”, demonstrating that women's legislative representation was not left entirely to the general electorate; special seats were provided for them.

IGNOU likewise records that under the Government of India Act, 1935, a limited number of seats were reserved for women in the legislatures. Importantly, this did not amount to universal political equality: the female franchise remained qualification-based, and influential women's organisations continued to demand universal adult franchise.

Thus, the two developments should be distinguished:

After 1919 → gradual, limited and qualification-based female franchise
Government of India Act, 1935 → provision for reserved legislative seats for women