The Government of India Act, 1935 had a significant influence on the drafting of the Indian Constitution, with both continuities and departures observed in the final constitutional framework.

Continuities:

Federal Structure: Both the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Indian Constitution adopted a federal structure, with a central government and provincial/state governments.
Distribution of Powers: The Constitution retained the broad division of powers between the Union and the states, as established in the 1935 Act, with the Union government having greater powers.
Bicameral Legislature: While the Indian Constitution ultimately opted for a unicameral Parliament at the Union level, the 1935 Act had established a bicameral legislature at the center, which was a reference point during the debates.
Gubernatorial System: The Constitution retained the gubernatorial system, with the President/Governor acting as the nominal head of the Union/state governments.
All-India Services: The Constitution continued the system of All-India Services, such as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service, which were introduced in the 1935 Act.
Departures:

Constituent Assembly: The most significant departure was the drafting of the Constitution by a democratically elected Constituent Assembly, rather than being imposed by the British Parliament, as was the case with the 1935 Act.
Strengthened Centre: The Indian Constitution granted the Union government significantly more powers compared to the 1935 Act, reflecting a stronger unitary bias.
Fundamental Rights: The Constitution incorporated a comprehensive Bill of Fundamental Rights, which was absent in the 1935 Act.
Directive Principles of State Policy: The Constitution introduced the novel concept of Directive Principles of State Policy, which were non-justiciable but guided the state’s policymaking.
Judiciary: The Constitution established a unified, integrated judiciary, unlike the dual judiciary system envisaged in the 1935 Act.
Electoral System: The Constitution introduced a system of direct elections to the Lok Sabha, as opposed to the indirect elections prescribed in the 1935 Act.
The influence of the Government of India Act, 1935 is evident in the Indian Constitution, particularly in the broad federal structure and the distribution of powers between the Union and the states. However, the Constituent Assembly, guided by the vision of a democratic, sovereign, and egalitarian India, made significant departures to create a unique constitutional framework that better reflected the aspirations of the Indian people.

The decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, as opposed to a bicameral legislature, was a significant and much-debated issue during the Constituent Assembly Debates.

Arguments in Favor of a Single-Chamber Parliament:

Efficiency and Expediency: The proponents argued that a unicameral system would enable quicker decision-making and more efficient legislative processes, which was crucial for a newly independent nation facing numerous challenges.
Avoiding Legislative Deadlocks: The concern was that a bicameral legislature could lead to deadlocks between the two houses, hindering the passage of important legislation.
Representation of the People: The Constituent Assembly members believed that the directly elected Lok Sabha would be a better reflection of the will of the people, as compared to an indirectly elected upper house.
Precedent of the Government of India Act, 1935: The Government of India Act, 1935, which served as a reference point, had established a unicameral legislature at the central level.
Arguments Against a Single-Chamber Parliament:

Checks and Balances: Critics argued that a bicameral system would provide an important system of checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power in the hands of a single chamber.
Representation of Diverse Interests: An upper house could have ensured the representation of diverse interests, such as those of the states, minorities, and other marginalized groups.
Deliberation and Scrutiny: A bicameral legislature would allow for more thorough deliberation and scrutiny of legislation, leading to better-quality laws.
Precedent of Other Federal Democracies: Many other federal democracies, such as the United States and Australia, had adopted bicameral legislatures.
Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly decided to opt for a single-chamber Parliament, the Lok Sabha, as the primary legislative body at the Union level. This decision has had several implications:

Concentration of Power: The absence of an upper house has resulted in a greater concentration of power in the Lok Sabha and the Union government.
Scrutiny and Deliberation: The lack of an upper house has been criticized for reducing the level of scrutiny and deliberation on legislation.
Representation of States: The absence of an upper house has been seen by some as undermining the representation of states in the legislative process.
However, the Indian Parliament has evolved over time, with the introduction of the Rajya Sabha as an indirectly elected upper house, which now plays a role in the legislative process, albeit with limited powers compared to the Lok Sabha.

The decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, with its trade-offs, has been a significant aspect of the Indian constitutional framework, reflecting the unique political and historical context of the time.