This is the official report of the Indian Statutory Commission, presented to Parliament in May 1930. As a primary source, it records the Commission’s own findings and recommendations on Indian constitutional reform.

It has been the subject of long and acrimonious debate in the Indian Legislative Assembly and inside and outside the leaders of the various political groups have been denouncing the Report of the Commission as reactionary and retrogressive and an insult to India.

The Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission, published its two-volume report in June 1930. The commission proposed to abolish dyarchy and extend autonomy to the provinces by establishing representative government in provinces. However, it allowed the British governors of provinces to retain much of their emergency powers, so in practice very little autonomy was to be given to the provinces. Most notably, the commission's report did not mention dominion status at all and recommended retaining separate electorates as long as inter-communal tensions remained.

Despite the public dissent and boycott, the Simon Commission published a two-volume report in 1930, mainly the work of Simon. Regarded as a classic state document, the report proposed provincial autonomy in India but rejected parliamentary responsibility at the center. It recommended the abolition of dyarchy at the provincial level, accepted the idea of federalism, and sought to retain direct contact between the British crown and the Indian states. Before its publication, however, the report’s conclusions had been outdated by the Irwin Declaration of October 1929, which stated that dominion status was to be the goal of Indian constitutional development.

The British appointed the Statutory Commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon on 8 November 1927 to examine the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms implemented on 23 December 1919. All the members of the commission were members of the British Parliament. There was an immediate outcry in the country over the constitution of the commission, so the entire nation rallied under Gandhi’s call for boycott. The Indian press voluntarily came forward to report the weakness of the Simon report and openly condemned the anti-Indian attitude of the members of the commission; the political literature treated the outcome of the report as just an ‘eye wash’.

The Simon Commission Report marked a significant stage in India's constitutional evolution under British rule. In 1930, the report of the Simon Commission was published. Before publishing, the government stated that Indian opinion will be taken into account in the future and that the logical result of constitutional changes would be India's dominion status. It suggested the abolition of diarchy and the establishment of representative governments in the provinces and the retention of separate communal constituencies until communal tensions had fallen. However, Indians were outraged by these recommendations; Congress rejected it because its report was incomplete and insufficient, and the recommendations were not in favor of Indians and Muslims.

This historical essay argues that British constitutional reforms in India, including those reviewed by the Simon Commission, were shaped by deep-seated imperial assumptions. It notes that the Government of India Act 1919, which the Commission was to evaluate, "expressed the underlying racial, cultural and social dichotomies of its authors" and that "the continued authority of the British at the center" and the "pedagogical nature of the reforms" reflected "Britain's negative opinion of Indian political and intellectual thought." The author emphasizes that "as Britain made political gestures toward greater Indian independence, it continued to undermine this political stance with its deeply embedded bias toward the west," and states that these assumptions "were shared by the Simon Commission" in its approach to constitutional reform.

On 3 February 1928, the Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission, arrived in Bombay. The commission was constituted to report on the working of the Government of India Act of 1919 and to study constitutional reform in British India and suggest more reforms. The commission consisted of seven members, all of whom were British, under the joint chairmanship of John Simon and Clement Attlee. The commission later published a two-volume report proposing provincial autonomy in India but rejecting parliamentary responsibility at the Centre.

An answer discussing British and Indian debates over independence describes the Simon Commission as a turning point: "This commission consisted of British and even other Europeans, but not a single Indian. This made Indian politicians angry, specially Jawaharlal Nehru." It notes that Nehru, previously willing to accept dominion status, "after the Simon Commission… changed his mind and demanded 'Purna Swaraj' or complete independence". The broader context given is that many British proposals "stopped short of full independence" and "proposed some compromise where Indians were given much larger roles in administration, but final political authority remained with the British," situating the Commission’s recommendations within a pattern of preserving British rule while offering limited reforms.

The Simon Commission was boycotted by Indians in 1927 primarily because it was composed entirely of British members, which was seen as an insult. All members were British and not one of them was Indian; the composition of the committee was considered an insult in India, and all parties became convinced that they must settle their differences and work together in opposition to the Simon Commission. Indians believed that these were obvious stalling tactics to defer self-government, so they organized opposition to the Simon Commission.

A multiple-choice explanation about agitation against the Simon Commission summarizes key grievances: "The Simon Commission had been sent by the British govt to report on colonial India's constitutional system and suggest reforms." The people of India agitated against its arrival in part because "there was no Indian member in the Simon Commission," highlighting the perception that Indians were excluded from deciding their own constitutional future. The content frames the Commission as a British-initiated body to review the working of the 1919 Act without Indian participation, which critics saw as indicative of a colonial bias.

An educational Instagram reel summarises that "The British government sent the Simon Commission to review India's constitutional system and recommend future political reforms."[7] It notes that the commission consisted only of British members and that this exclusion of Indians led to widespread protests and the slogan "Simon Go Back," portraying the commission as an imperial mechanism rather than a neutral or pro‑Indian body.[7] The reel highlights Indian nationalist reactions, including boycotts and demonstrations, as evidence of how the commission was perceived on the ground.[7]

A short educational reel explains that "In 1927, the British government sent the Simon Commission. The biggest issue was that there wasn't a single Indian member in this commission." It notes that this absence was a primary reason "Indians boycotted the Simon Commission," reflecting widespread belief that the body, reporting directly to the British government, would not genuinely advance Indian self-government but instead serve colonial interests.

A Facebook group post discussing John Simon and the commission notes that "In 1928, the British government set up the Commission, headed by Sir John Simon, to report on the political situation in India" and that it contained no Indian members.[8] The post describes how various Indian political organizations, including the Indian National Congress, opposed and boycotted the body and adopted the slogan "Simon Go Back," seeing it as representing British interests rather than Indian aspirations.[8] This popular reaction underscores the widespread belief among contemporaries that the commission and its eventual report were biased toward maintaining colonial structures.[8]

According to later historical overviews, the Simon Commission’s report became the basis for aspects of the Government of India Act 1935, which introduced provincial autonomy but kept central power firmly in British hands and did not grant full responsible government at the national level. Historians of the period generally describe the commission’s approach and its recommendations as cautious and conservative, aiming to preserve British supremacy while making limited concessions to Indian self-governance.

The Simon Commission arrived in British India in 1928 to study constitutional reforms in Britain's largest and most important possession. It was tasked with reporting on the working of the Government of India Act and suggesting further reforms, but its all-British composition and the nature of its recommendations were widely criticized by Indian political leaders and the public as favoring continued British control.

The Simon Commission was majorly criticized because of the lack of Indian representation on the board of members. There was not a single Indian member included in it.