Power to make rules
Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 deals with power to make rules. ] [The State Government may] [by notification in the Official Gazette] make rules consistent with this Act-- (1) defining the acts which shall constitute prison-offences ; The Act came into force on 07 Jan 1894.
1[(1)] 2[The State Government may] 3[by notification in the Official Gazette] make rules consistent with this Act--
(1) defining the acts which shall constitute prison-offences ;
(2) determining the classification of prison-offences into serious and minor offences;
(3) fixing the punishments admissible under this Act which shall be awardable for commission of prison-offences or classes thereof ;
(4) declaring the circumstances in which acts constituting both a prison-offence and an offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may or may not be dealt with as a prisonoffence ;
(5) for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences ;
(6) regulating the use of arms against any prisoner or body of prisoners in the case of an outbreak or attempt to escape ;
(7) defining the circumstances and regulating the conditions under which prisoners in danger of death may be released ;
4[(8) for the classification of prisons, and description and construction of wards, cells and other places of detention;
(9) for the regulation by numbers, length or character of sentences, or otherwise, of the prisoners to be confined in each class of prisons;
(10) for the government of prisons and for the appointment of all officers appointed under this Act;
(11) as to the food, bedding and clothing of criminal prisoners and of civil prisoners maintained otherwise than at their own cost;
(12) for the employment, instruction and control of convicts within or without prisons;
(13) for defining articles the introduction or removal of which into or out of prisons without due authority is prohibited;
(14) for classifying and prescribing the forms of labour and regulating the periods of rest from labour;
(15) for regulating the disposal of the proceeds of the employment of prisoners;
(16) for regulating the confinement in fetters of prisoners sentenced to transportation;
(17) for the classification and the separation of prisoners;
(18) for regulating the confinement of convicted criminal prisoners under section 28;
(19) for the preparation and maintenance of history-tickets;
(20) for the selection and appointment of prisoners as officers of prisons;
(21) for rewards for good conduct;
(22) for regulating the transfer of prisoners whose term of transportation or imprisonment is about to expire subject, however, to the consent of the State Government of any other State to which a prisoner is to be transferred;
(23) for the treatment, transfer and disposal of criminal lunatics or recovered criminal lunatics confined in prisons;
(24) for regulating the transmission of appeals and petitions from prisoners and their communications with their friends;
(25) for the appointment and guidance of visitors of prisons;
(26) for extending any or all of the provisions of this Act and of the rules thereunder to subsidiary jails or special places of confinement appointed under section 541 of the 5Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882), and to the officers employed, and the prisoners confined, therein;
(27) in regard to the admission, custody, employment, dieting, treatment and release of prisoners; and
(28) generally for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act.]
6[(2) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.]
STATE AMENDMENTS
Orissa.--
Amendment of section 59 (Act 9 of 1894).--In section 59 of the said Act, for clause (5) the following clause shall be substitute, namely:--
"(5) for the award of marks, granting remission or furlough, determining the conditions on which and the authority by which such remission or furlough shall be granted and the consequent shortening of the sentence."
[Vide the Orissa Act 29 of 1958, s.6]
Maharashtra.--
Amendment of section 59 of Act IX of 1894.--In section 59 of the said Act, for clause (5), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:--
"(5) for the award of marks, granting remission or furlough, determining the conditions on which and the authority by which such remission or furlough shall be granted and the consequent shortening of the sentence."
[Vide Bombay Act XXVII of 1953, s. 6]
Section 59, The Prisons Act, 1894 (Act 9 of 1894).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Haryana vs Naresh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Life Convict Has A Legal Right And Legitimate Expectation Grounded In The Constitution To Be Considered For Premature Release Under The Remission Policy Existing On The Date Of His Conviction, Not Under A Subsequently Introduced Stricter Policy. This Right Derives From: (A) Articles 20(1) And 21 Of The Constitution Which Protect Convicts Against Retroactive Stringency; (B) The Statutory Rules Under The Prisons Act, 1894 Which Create Vested Legal Rights; (C) The Constitutional Power Under Article 161 Which Operates As An Overarching Framework; (D) The Maru Ram Doctrine Which Establishes That Remission Policies Apply Prospectively And Rights Crystallize At The Time Of Conviction. Consequently, A Stricter Remission Policy Issued After A Convict's Sentence Cannot Be Applied Retroactively To Deprive Him Of The Benefit Of The Earlier, More Lenient Policy. The State Must Consider Such Convict's Case Under The Policy In Force At The Time Of His Conviction.
On this section: Statutory Rules Providing For Award Of Marks And Shortening Of Sentence; Court Held These Create Statutory Legal Rights And Cannot Be Overridden By Executive Instructions
-
State of Haryana vs Rajwanti
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict has a legitimate expectation to be considered for premature release based on the remission policy that was in force at the time of his conviction, not the stricter policy that may be introduced later. The State is required to exercise its power of remission while keeping in view the honest expectation perceived by the convict at the time of conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence prescribed in the remission policy existing on that date. Once a remission policy is issued by the government, it must be uniformly and invariably applied to all similarly situated convicts. A subsequent policy cannot be applied retroactively to make conditions more stringent for convicts already convicted under the earlier, more lenient policy. This principle applies even where the later policy is issued under statutory authority (Section 432 Cr.P.C.), as such statutory provisions are subordinate to constitutional clemency powers (Articles 72 and 161), which have always recognized the primacy of fairness and legitimate expectations in their exercise.
On this section: Section 59(5) enables government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence; Rules 20 and 21 classify prisoners and determine when remission cases should be reported to government - these are statutory rules creating legal rights, not mere executive instructions
-
State of Haryana vs Pardeep
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict is entitled to have his case considered for remission and pre-mature release in accordance with the remission policy prevailing at the time of his conviction, and the State cannot retroactively apply a stricter remission policy to an already convicted prisoner. The relevant date for determining the applicable remission policy is the date of conviction, not the date of consideration of the case. The constitutional clemency power under Article 161 cannot be restricted by statutory provisions, but must be exercised in accordance with established policies and respect for the legitimate expectations of convicts developed at the time of their conviction.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence. Court recognized statutory rules framed under this Act create legal rights in convicts, distinguishing them from mere executive instructions.
-
State of Haryana vs Surat Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict sentenced under a remission policy in force at the time of his conviction retains the right to have his case considered for premature release in accordance with that policy, notwithstanding subsequent changes to the policy, unless the subsequent policy is more lenient. The constitutional power of clemency under Article 161 cannot be subordinated to statutory restrictions in Section 433-A Cr.P.C., and state authorities must exercise discretion in relation to the honest expectation perceived by the convict at the time of conviction that his case would be considered under the remission policy then prevailing. The State is obligated to at least exercise its discretion considering any benefit construed liberally in favour of a convict in relation to the policy applicable at the date of conviction.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentences; court found these rules to be statutory provisions creating legal rights for prisoners, not merely executive instructions
-
State of Haryana vs Bhagwat Dayal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a remission policy is in place at the date of a convict's conviction and is expressly referable to the constitutional clemency power under Article 161 of the Constitution, that policy constitutes the relevant legal framework for consideration of the convict's case for pre-mature release. A subsequent policy framed under statutory authority (Section 432 CrPC) cannot be applied retroactively to override the earlier policy, as constitutional power is superior to and paramount over statutory restrictions. The convict acquires a legitimate expectation that his case will be considered in accordance with the remission scheme applicable at the date of conviction, and this expectation is enforceable against arbitrary retroactive policy changes. The State's exercise of clemency power under Article 161 remains unfettered even by its own statutory policies, and must be guided by the principles of modern penology emphasizing rehabilitation, along with proper consideration of each case within the framework of the policy applicable at conviction.
On this section: Authorizes government to frame rules for remission; statutory rules create legal rights in favor of convicts to have cases considered
-
State of Haryana vs Pirthi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict has a legal right to have his case for pre-mature release considered under the remission policy or scheme existing on the date of his conviction, not the policy prevailing on the date when his case is considered for pre-mature release. This right is grounded in the Prisons Act 1894, constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(1) and 21, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. When a remission policy is referable to the constitutional power under Article 161, it represents a constitutional mandate superior to statutory restrictions under Section 433-A CrPC, and cannot be retrospectively replaced by a stricter policy. The State must exercise its power of remission and clemency keeping in view the expectation crystallized in favor of the convict at the time of his conviction, and benefits should be construed liberally in favor of the convict.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence; Court held these rules create statutory rights
-
State of Haryana vs Shamsher Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict who was convicted and sentenced prior to the enactment of a stricter remission policy has a legitimate expectation and legal right to have his case for pre-mature release considered in accordance with the remission policy applicable at the time of his conviction, not a subsequently enacted, more stringent policy. The State Government is obligated to exercise its discretion to consider such cases honestly and uniformly under the earlier applicable policy. While the executive clemency power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution remains unfettered and can override statutory restrictions, this power must be exercised rationally, with reasons, and cannot be completely inflexible. Remission schemes referable to Article 161 of the Constitution constitute superior law and cannot be overridden by policies framed merely under Section 432 Cr.P.C. The Prisons Act, 1894 and statutory rules framed thereunder create enforceable legal rights in convicts, and these statutory rules must be uniformly and invariably applied once issued.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence; cited for statutory authority of remission rules
-
State of Haryana vs Kiran Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Life Convict Sentenced Under A Particular Remission Policy Has A Legitimate Expectation To Be Considered For Premature Release Under That Policy Existing At The Time Of His Conviction. The State Cannot Retrospectively Apply A Subsequently Enacted Stricter Remission Policy To Such Convict. The Constitutional Clemency Power Of The Governor Under Article 161 Is Not Fettered By Procedural Statutory Provisions Like Sections 432, 433, 433-A Of The Criminal Procedure Code. The State Must Exercise Its Discretion In Relation To Such Legitimate Expectation Honestly And Cannot Ignore It. If A More Liberal Policy Is Subsequently Enacted, The Convict May Claim Benefit Thereof. Remission Policies And Rules Under The Prisons Act 1894 Are Guidelines That Must Be Uniformly Applied Once Issued, And The Governor Has Unfettered Power To Grant Clemency Even Beyond Their Terms In Appropriate Circumstances.
On this section: Section 59 Enables Government To Frame Rules For Award Of Marks And Shortening Of Sentence; Rules Classify Prisoners By Gravity Of Offence; Court Held These Are Statutory Rules Creating Enforceable Rights In Lifers, Not Merely Executive Instructions
-
State of Haryana vs Ram Phal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The remission policy which was prevailing on the date of conviction of an accused person, and not a subsequent policy brought into force, shall govern the consideration of his case for premature release or grant of clemency under Article 161 of the Constitution. Life convicts possess a legal right, grounded in the Prisons Act, 1894, rules framed thereunder, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, to have their cases for premature release considered in accordance with the remission policy existing at the time of their conviction. When a remission policy is issued with reference to Article 161 of the Constitution, it operates as a constitutional mandate that cannot be overridden by subsequently enacted policies based on subordinate statutory provisions like Sections 432-433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State Government must exercise its discretion in granting remission by giving honest consideration to the legitimate expectation perceived by the convict at the time of conviction, and if a more lenient policy prevails at the time of consideration for premature release, benefit thereof should be extended.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentences; Court treated these rules as statutory, not mere executive instructions, creating vested rights in life convicts for consideration within prescribed parameters
-
State of Haryana vs Rajbir Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a remission or short sentencing policy exists on the date of a life convict's conviction and is referable to Article 161 of the Constitution, that policy becomes the basis for evaluating the convict's case for pre-mature release. A subsequent, stricter policy issued after the conviction cannot be applied retroactively to override the convict's legitimate expectation of being considered under the policy prevailing at the time of conviction. The State has an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to the honest expectation perceived by the convict at the time of his conviction. However, if a more lenient policy prevails at the date of consideration for remission, the convict should be afforded the benefit of that more favorable policy. While the convict has no absolute right to pre-mature release, he possesses a legal right to have his case considered in accordance with the relevant rules and policies. The constitutional clemency power under Articles 72 and 161 remains unfettered and superior to statutory restrictions under Section 433-A Cr.P.C., and can be exercised even before statutory minimum periods are completed in exceptional circumstances.
On this section: Enables government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence; establishes statutory basis for remission rules
-
State of Haryana vs Balwant
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict has a legitimate expectation grounded in constitutional law (Article 161 and the Prisons Act 1894) and criminal procedure to be considered for pre-mature release or clemency under the remission policy that existed at the time of his conviction, not under a stricter policy subsequently introduced by the government. While the executive's clemency power under Article 161 is absolute and cannot be restricted by statutory provisions like Sections 432-433A CrPC, this power must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with fair principles of administrative law, including the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The state cannot retroactively withdraw or make more stringent a remission policy that was in force at conviction, as this would violate the constitutional protections under Articles 20(1) and 21, and the statutory rights created under the Prisons Act 1894 and rules framed thereunder. Once a remission policy is issued by the government (even as an executive instruction), it must be uniformly and invariably applied to all similarly situated convicts and cannot be selectively withdrawn or changed retroactively for convicts convicted before the policy change.
On this section: Enables Government to frame rules for award of marks and shortening of sentence; Court found these statutory rules create legal rights in convicts and are superior to mere executive instructions
-
State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Pandurang Darvakar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The grant of furlough to a prisoner is not an absolute right but is subject to mandatory compliance with Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(4) requires that furlough cannot be granted unless the District Magistrate (or Commissioner of Police in Greater Bombay) has positively recommended the release on grounds that public peace and tranquility would not be threatened. Rule 6 mandates two conditions: (1) the prisoner must have a relative willing to receive him, and (2) such relative must be ready to execute a surety bond in the prescribed form for a fixed amount. Furnishing of monetary surety from jail deposits does not satisfy the personal undertaking requirement of a relative's surety bond. High Courts cannot bypass these procedural safeguards even on equitable grounds without proper compliance with the rules.
On this section: Power conferred to frame rules relating to furlough and parole systems; Clause 5(A) defines Furlough System and Clause 5(B) defines Parole System to differentiate purposes and legal effects
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… of the convicted person's natural life.' The Court further observed thus: (AIR pp. 603-04, paras 7-8) > ' 7 . … But the Prisons Act does not confer on any authority a power to commute or remit sentences; it provides only for the regulation of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners confined therein. Section 59 of the Prisons Act confers a power on the State Government to make rules, inter alia, for rewards for good conduct. Therefore, the rules made under the Act should be construed within the scope of the ambit of the Act. … Under the said rules the order of an appropriate Government under Section 401, Criminal Procedure …
-
… of the convicted person's natural life.' The Court further observed thus: (AIR pp. 603-04, paras 7-8) > ' 7 . … But the Prisons Act does not confer on any authority a power to commute or remit sentences; it provides only for the regulation of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners confined therein. Section 59 of the Prisons Act confers a power on the State Government to make rules, inter alia, for rewards for good conduct. Therefore, the rules made under the Act should be construed within the scope of the ambit of the Act. … Under the said rules the order of an appropriate Government under Section 401, Criminal Procedure …
-
… Instead, this Court approved the judgment of this Court reported as State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Ors. [5]( page-7-1) wherein it was held that these policies of remission are in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894, contemplating "for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences" and thus, they are statutory rules. Sections 401 and 402 of the Code were not empowering the appropriate Government to issue general or special orders and the conditions on which petitions for premature release should …
Made under this section, and citing it
9 instruments state that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
- Tripura Sansodhanagar (Trird amendment) Rules,2025Notification 2025
- THE RAJASTHAN PRISONS RULES, 2022Rule 2022
- The Andaman and Nicobar Prison Manual, 2021Rule 2021
- The Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021Rule 2021
- Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2020.Notification 2020
- The Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020Notification 2020
- Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018Notification 2018
- Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006Rule 2007
- Maharashtra Prison Manual 1979 RULESRule 1979
Another 1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 59
What have the courts held on Section 59 of the Prisons Act?
State of Haryana vs Naresh (22 Mar 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Statutory Rules Providing For Award Of Marks And Shortening Of Sentence; Court Held These Create Statutory Legal Rights And Cannot Be Overridden By Executive Instructions. Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2010.
How do I find court cases under Section 59 of the Prisons Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Prisons Act 1894 59, section 59 Prisons Act 1894, section 59 of the Prisons Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Haryana vs Naresh (22 Mar 2010).
What should I read with Section 59 of the Prisons Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 28 (Association and segregation of prisoners), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there are 9: most recently Tripura Sansodhanagar (Trird amendment) Rules,2025 (2025), then THE RAJASTHAN PRISONS RULES, 2022 (2022), and 7 more.
When did Section 59 of the Prisons Act come into force?
Section 59 of the Prisons Act, cited as Prisons Act 1894 59, came into force on 07 Jan 1894, having been enacted on 22 Mar 1894. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 46. Punishment of such offences729 words
- 3. Definitions538 words
- 48. Award of punishments under sections 46 and 47353 words
- 47. Plurality of punishments under section 46332 words
- 45. Prison-offences224 words
- 6. Officers of prisons213 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.