Consider the following statements:
- Statement-I: In India, prisons are managed by State Governments with their own rules and regulations for the day-to-day administration of prisons.
- Statement-II: In India, prisons are governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 which expressly kept the subject of prisons in the control of Provincial Governments.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Answer & explanation
Answer: (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
Why not the tempting option · UPSC's key is (a). The 1894 Act does not use the words 'expressly kept', but it does expressly vest prisons in the provincial (now State) government: section 3 makes a prison a place used under that government's orders and section 59 gives it the rule-making power, so Statement II is a fair description. Option (b) fails because that rule-making power is precisely why each State has its own rules (Statement I); the State List entry of 1950 added the constitutional footing. In the exam, treat a statement as 'expressly' true when the Act's sections say it, even if not in those words.
Prisons are a State subject, and each State runs its prisons under its own manual and rules. The Prisons Act, 1894 is the framework law that placed prisons under the provincial (now State) government: a prison is a place used under that government's orders, and section 59 gives it the power to make the rules. That is exactly why States have their own rules, so Statement II explains Statement I.
- ✓ Statement-I 'Prisons' is in the State List of the Seventh Schedule. The Ministry of Home Affairs says management and administration lie exclusively with State Governments, under the 1894 Act and each State's Prison Manual.
- ✓ Statement-II The Act vests prisons in the provincial government throughout: section 3 defines a prison as a place used under the orders of the (then provincial, now State) Government, and section 59 says the State Government may make rules consistent with the Act. So it kept the subject under provincial control; Entry 4 of the State List later gave this constitutional footing.
- ✓ (a) Statement-II is the legal reason for Statement-I: the 1894 Act's rule-making power is why each State has its own prison rules.
- ✗ (b) This option accepts both statements but treats Statement-II as unrelated to Statement-I. The two are directly linked.
Remember · Prisons: State List, Seventh Schedule. States run them under the Prisons Act, 1894 and their own Prison Manuals; the Centre only advises (e.g. Model Prison Manual, 2016).
Sources
- Scheme of Modernisation of Prisons (Ministry of Home Affairs) ↗ “The management and administration of Prisons falls exclusively in the domain of the State Governments, and is governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison Manuals of the respective State Governments.”
- The Prisons Act, 1894, section 3 (Ministry of Home Affairs copy) ↗ ““prison” means any jail or place used permanently or temporarily under the general or special orders of a State Government for the detention of prisoners … Power to make rules.—[The State Government may] make rules consistent with this Act— (1) defining the act which shall constitute prison-offences; (2) determining the classification of prison-offences into serious and minor offences”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). ·