Question map
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?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2.
Statement 1 is incorrect: Parole is not a matter of right for a prisoner. It is a progressive measure of rehabilitation and a discretionary administrative decision. Even if a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, the competent authority can deny parole based on grounds such as public interest, national security, or the likelihood of the prisoner absconding or committing further crimes. Judicial precedents, including those by the Supreme Court, have consistently held that parole is a privilege, not a fundamental or absolute right.
Statement 2 is correct: Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, 'Prisons' is a State Subject (Entry 4). Consequently, state governments are empowered to frame their own laws and rules regarding the administration of prisons and the release of prisoners. Most states have formulated their own specific Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, which govern the eligibility, duration, and conditions for granting parole.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question blends static Federalism (7th Schedule) with legal current affairs. While Statement 2 is a direct derivation of 'Prisons' being a State List subject, Statement 1 tests the specific legal distinction between a 'Right' (Furlough) and a 'Discretionary Privilege' (Parole), often discussed in high-profile release cases.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Direct statement from a court summary that parole is discretionary, distinguishing it from furlough which is described as a right.
- Explicit wording: 'parole is a discretionary remedy' — supports that parole is not an enforceable entitlement.
- Official guidance notes that parole is 'not an absolute right', indicating it is conditional and can be withheld.
- Also states parole is 'a legal right of every eligible prisoner as per the conditions laid down', showing the entitlement is subject to eligibility and discretion.
- Describes parole/furlough as a 'privilege' to be allowed to selective prisoners, implying discretionary grant rather than mandatory right.
- Defines parole as a temporary release privilege, reinforcing that it is a concession rather than an automatic entitlement.
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.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.