With reference to India, consider the following statements : 1. When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 2. State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

The Laxmikanth snippet presents the exact competing proposition (parole as a right) alongside the factual point that State Governments have their own 'Prisoners Release on Parole Rules'.

A student could check state-level parole rules (not given here) to see whether they frame parole as a statutory right or as something subject to rule-based discretion.

Explains a constitutional concept where Article 136 confers discretionary power (not a right) on the Supreme Court — an example of how reliefs can be discretionary rather than automatic rights.

By analogy, a student could ask whether parole is similarly created as an executive/discretionary relief (not an absolute right) in statutes or rules.

Describes the President's 'pardoning power' as a discretionary executive power not open to full judicial review — illustrates that release-related powers can be treated as executive discretion.

A student could use this pattern to infer that other release mechanisms (like parole) may also be placed in the domain of executive or administrative discretion unless law explicitly makes them rights.

Sets out constitutional protections against arbitrary detention (Articles 21/22) implying procedural safeguards for liberty, but does not equate every form of release (e.g., parole) with a constitutional right.

A student could examine whether parole is treated as part of Article 21/22 safeguards (requiring a right) or as a separate administrative measure (allowing discretion).

The Machal Lalung example shows that procedural and liberty-related rights guaranteed by the Constitution can fail in practice and that release mechanisms may depend on procedural action/intervention rather than being automatic rights.

A student could take this as a cautionary example to investigate whether parole requires procedural applications and administrative discretion rather than being an enforceable right.

The exam item explicitly lists 'State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules' as a debated proposition, showing this is a recognized claim in polity studies.

A student could take this noted proposition and check state-level rulebooks or state prison manuals to verify whether individual states have parole rules.

Explains the federal structure: states operate within a single Constitution but retain powers to make laws/rules on certain subjects.

Using the Constitution's division of subjects (State List), a student could check whether 'prisons' or 'administration of justice' fall under state competence, suggesting states may frame parole rules.

Notes that states have their own governments and administrative autonomy (though not fully independent).

A student can reasonably infer that administrative matters like prison management might be handled by state governments and so seek state-level parole rules.

Shows that preventive detention law was enacted at the national level (Preventive Detention Act, 1950), illustrating that some detention-related laws are centralised.

A student could use this contrast to ask which detention/prison matters are central (e.g., preventive detention) and which are left to states (e.g., prison administration/parole), then check respective lists of subjects.

Gives historical examples of detention regulations at sub-national levels (e.g., Bengal State Prisoners Regulation of 1818), indicating that sub-national entities have previously enacted prisoner-related rules.

A student might generalize that since sub-national/regional authorities have framed detention regulations historically, modern states could similarly frame parole rules and should be checked individually.