Elections, rights issues & governance

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).

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). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (b) Only two

Pairs 1 and 3 are correct; pair 2 is wrong. Misleading or interfering with police or armed-forces personnel on guard near a prohibited place is an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, not the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which only lays down rules of evidence in court.

• ✓ 1. Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 punishes wearing, without lawful authority, any naval, military, air force, police or other official uniform for the purposes the section lists.
• ✗ 2. Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (interfering with officers of the police or members of the Armed Forces) bars anyone near a prohibited place from obstructing, knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with them. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has no such offence.
• ✓ 3. The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 added sub-section (9) to section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: using a firearm in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine up to rupees one lakh, or both.

Remember · Uniform misuse and interference with police or armed forces near a prohibited place: Official Secrets Act, 1923 (sections 6 and 7). Celebratory gunfire: Arms Act, 1959 section 25(9), inserted in 2019.

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error