As per case facts, the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a High Court judgment that declared Rule 3(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964, ultra ... vires Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954. This decision relied on a prior Supreme Court ruling regarding similar U.P. rules. The prisoner, convicted under Section 396 IPC, sought release on probation after completing over five years of imprisonment, but his application was not considered due to Rule 3(a) which excluded certain offenses from probation eligibility. The question arose whether Rule 3(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, which defines classes of offenders ineligible for probation based on the nature of their offense, is ultra vires the enabling Act, specifically Section 2 and Section 9(4), or if it validly classifies prisoners for the purpose of the Act's reformative objective. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Rule 3(a) is not ultra vires the Act and does not defeat its object. It clarified that Section 9(4) allows for rules classifying offenders based on antecedents, conduct, and the nature of offenses. The Court emphasized that the Act's preamble indicates the benefit is for "certain prisoners," implying classification is permissible, and the gravity of the offense is an integral factor. The Court overruled the previous two-Judges Bench decision in State of U.P. vs. Sadhu Saran Shukla, stating it misinterpreted Rule 3(a) and the Act's purpose.