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?

Explicit example: the snippet states 'State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules', showing that at least one class of prison-related rules is made by states.

A student could generalize from parole rules to other operational prison rules and then check individual state prison manuals or rules to test whether states issue broader prison regulations.

Explains that states have their own executive (governor, chief minister, council of ministers) under Part VI, implying states carry out internal administration through their executive organs.

Combine this with the idea that day-to-day prison administration is an internal/state executive function and examine state executive notifications or departments (e.g., prisons/home) for state-level rules.

States are described as distinct levels of government with powers 'clearly laid down' by the Constitution, illustrating the federal principle that different levels can have separate responsibilities.

Use the federal division-of-powers idea to infer that matters of internal administration (like prisons) might fall to state governments and then verify via state lists of subjects or laws.

Contrast with Union Territories: the table points out UTs are under direct central control while states 'have autonomy' and varied administrative set-ups, suggesting states can frame their own administrative rules.

A student could contrast state prison rules with central control in UTs (where central rules might apply) to see whether states indeed have distinct prison regulations.

Historical/legal example: references to Bengal State Prisoners Regulation of 1818 and other regional detention laws show precedents of region/state-level prison/detention regulations.

Use these historical examples as a pattern that regional authorities can enact prison-related laws and then look for contemporary state statutes or rules on prison administration.

States have their own 'Prisoners Release on Parole Rules', indicating prison administration/regulation is exercised at state level as well as by other laws.

A student could check the constitutional distribution of 'prisons' (State List) and infer that a central 1894 Act may not be the only or exclusive source of prison law today.

References to historical colonial-era prison regulations (Bengal State Prisoners Regulation 1818) show a pattern of prison law originating in colonial statutes.

One could reasonably suspect the existence of other colonial prison statutes (like an 1894 Act) and then look up whether such an Act was retained, amended, or superseded post-independence.

Notes that preventive/detention laws were present in British India and continued into modern statutes, demonstrating continuity and replacement patterns for colonial laws.

Use this pattern (colonial laws being continued, replaced, or re-enacted) to investigate whether the Prisons Act, 1894 was retained, amended, or replaced by later central or state legislation.

Shows Parliament enacted the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, illustrating that the central legislature creates post-independence laws on detention/prison-related matters.

A student could check whether Parliament enacted or amended prison law after 1894 (e.g., 1950s onwards) which might alter the role of an 1894 Act.

Mentions the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as an example of a colonial 1894 statute that continued relevance, showing that statutes from 1894 can be enduring central laws.

This suggests a plausible hypothesis that a Prisons Act of 1894 (if it exists) might similarly have been a central colonial statute; the student could then check whether it remains in force or has been superseded.

States that provincial subjects were divided and that 'prisons' was listed among reserved provincial subjects, implying prisons were treated as a provincial-level subject in later administrative lists.

A student could check statutory lists or the original Prisons Act text to see whether the Act delegates administration to provinces consistent with this categorization.

Repeats the point that the Act (here the Government of India Act context) placed 'prisons' under provincial subjects, showing a pattern of treating prisons as within provincial competence.

Use this pattern to hypothesize that imperial/local prison administration was expected to be handled by provincial authorities and then verify the Prisons Act wording.

Describes 19th-century administrative practice of giving provincial governments control over services including Police and Jails; shows historical precedent for provincial administration of prisons.

Combine this administrative history with the Prisons Act date (1894) to infer likely alignment of the Act with provincial administration and then check the Act's provisions.

Explains that later constitutional arrangements divided powers into lists (Federal, Provincial, Concurrent) and granted provinces autonomous administration in their spheres — a general rule about allocation of subjects.

Use the list-based rule to look up whether 'prisons' appears on a provincial list or was retained centrally at the time of the 1894 Act.

Notes financial decentralisation and transfer of certain administrative departments (education, medical, roads) to provinces and mentions transfer of departments like jails in context of provincial finances, showing institutional trend.

A student can take this trend as supporting evidence that jail administration was commonly a provincial function and then inspect the Prisons Act for explicit assignment of control.