The Indian Independence Act of 1947 made several important constitutional changes for British India and the newly created Dominions. Which one of the following was not a change brought about by this Act?

Introduction / Context:
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 was a landmark law passed by the British Parliament to give independence to India and to create the Dominions of India and Pakistan. It ended British rule in India and radically altered the constitutional relationship between India and the British Crown. To answer this question correctly, you need to know which features were actually introduced by the Act and which statement does not correctly describe the constitutional position after 1947.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The Act came into force on 15 August 1947.- It created two independent Dominions, India and Pakistan.- The Government of India Act 1935 was used as the basic constitutional framework until new Constitutions were framed.- The question asks for the statement that is not a change brought about by the Indian Independence Act of 1947.

Concept / Approach:
The key is to distinguish between political reality before and after independence. Before 1947, India was a British dependency and ultimate authority rested in the British Parliament and the Crown. After the Act, supreme legislative power was transferred to the Constituent Assemblies of the Dominions. While the King remained a symbolic head of each Dominion, he was no longer the source of authority for making laws for India. The Governor General became the constitutional head within each Dominion, acting largely on the advice of Dominion ministers. Therefore, any statement suggesting that the Crown still remained the real source of authority after independence is not correct.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recognise that the Act declared India and Pakistan to be independent Dominions, so they ceased to be British dependencies. This supports option B as a correct change.Step 2: Understand that the Government of India Act 1935, as adapted, continued to be used as an interim constitutional framework for both Dominions until they framed their own Constitutions. This makes option A a correct statement.Step 3: Note that the Governor General in each Dominion functioned as a constitutional head, representing the Crown but normally acting on the advice of Dominion ministers. This supports option D as a correct description.Step 4: The crucial point is that the power of the British Parliament to legislate for India ended. The Constituent Assemblies of the Dominions gained sovereign powers. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the British Crown remained the real source of constitutional authority until a new Constitution was framed. That claim in option C does not match the constitutional position after 1947.

Verification / Alternative check:
An alternative way to check is to recall that one of the main objectives of the Act was to transfer full law making power to Indian hands. The Dominions could amend or repeal any previous British law that applied to them. If the Crown had remained the true source of authority, the Indian legislature would not have gained such power. This contradiction confirms that any statement claiming continued real authority of the Crown is not a correct description of the changes brought by the Act.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is correct because the 1935 Act, suitably adapted, functioned as the interim constitutional document for the Dominions until their own Constitutions came into effect.Option B is correct because the Act clearly declared that India would cease to be a dependency and would become an independent Dominion within the British Commonwealth.Option D is correct because the Governor General became the constitutional head of the Dominion, acting on the advice of responsible ministers in the Dominion, rather than being a direct agent of the British Cabinet.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes confuse the symbolic role of the Crown as head of the Commonwealth with actual constitutional authority. It is easy to think that because the King remained the nominal head of the Dominion, the Crown continued to control Indian affairs as before. Another common mistake is to overlook the difference between an interim use of an existing Act and the source of constitutional authority. The continued use of the Government of India Act 1935 as an interim framework does not mean that the British Parliament still held power. The transfer of sovereignty is the key idea to remember when tackling such questions.

Final Answer:
Correct answer: The British Crown continued to be the real source of all constitutional authority until a new Constitution was framed