Open Access Research Article
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE CONCEPT OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
AN
ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE CONCEPT OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- ADYA GUPTA
ABSTRACT
Plea bargaining has become a popular
legal method in criminal judicial systems across the globe, including India.
The goal of this research is to present a thorough examination of the idea of
plea bargaining concerning Indian law. The study explores the legislative
underpinnings, historical development, and use of plea bargaining in the Indian
legal system. Using a multifaceted approach, the study looks at the social,
ethical, and legal ramifications of plea bargaining in the Indian setting. It
examines the reasons for the practice's introduction and assesses how well
plea-bargaining works to speed up criminal trials, cut down on case backlogs,
and improve overall efficiency in the criminal justice system.
In addition, the study investigates the
constitutionality of plea bargaining and the protections it provides for the
accused to guarantee that their rights are sufficiently upheld. This review
looks closely at the laws, court rulings, and developing body of knowledge in
India on plea bargaining. Another important component of this research is the
socioeconomic effects of plea bargaining on many stakeholders, such as victims,
accused parties, and society in general. It evaluates the possible advantages
and disadvantages of plea bargaining, looking at how it can help the criminal
justice system achieve its larger objectives while still upholding public trust
and accomplishing justice.
The study also considers the
difficulties and objections related to the use of plea bargaining in India. To
shed light on the areas needing reform and attention, it examines topics
including coercion, unequal bargaining power, and abuse potential. To sum up,
this analytical study adds to the body of knowledge already available on plea
bargaining in India by providing a fair assessment of its effectiveness and
implications for the legal system. To promote a fuller knowledge of the
complexity of plea bargaining and its ramifications for the Indian criminal
justice system, the research findings are intended to be informative to
policymakers, legal practitioners, and researchers.
INTRODUCTION
One of the basic tasks of the state
has always been to preserve law and order and to guarantee that justice is
served. This was a role that stayed constant even as the state transitioned
from a police state to a welfare state. The primary goal of having a criminal
justice framework is to maintain peace and demand among the public and to
accommodate a review mechanism when a resident's rights are violated. As a
result, the framework criminalizes many behaviors that violate or infringe on
the rights guaranteed to a person in a civilized society. Nonetheless, the
inconsistent force condition between the accused and the State mandates a
procedure that is reasonable for the accused and safeguards his rights at each
stage.[1]
Every year, residents pay taxes to the state
and authorities to ensure the proper operation of the state's three organs.
Extended pre-trial proceedings and case backlogs that cause unreasonable delays
in justice will undermine the confidence and dependability of the judiciary,
which is the foundation of a legal system. With the addition of sections 265A-265L
to the Code of Criminal Procedure, (1973) by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act
of 2005, the legislature officially introduced plea bargaining into the Indian
legal system to address the problem of case backlogs in Indian courts and to
alleviate the suffering of under trial prisoners. The introduction of plea
bargaining will help to fix our criminal justice system.
The solution is to look for elective
debate objective components for settling a criminal case. Plea Bargaining is
one of several options for resolving a criminal dispute without subjecting the
accused to a traditional preliminary hearing.
MEANING OF
PLEA BARGAINING
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines
plea bargaining as "a negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and a
criminal defendant in which the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence or
one of the multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecutor,
usually a more lenient sentence or dismissal of the negotiated charges"[2]
Furthermore, plea bargaining can also
be defined as “an agreement in a criminal case in which the prosecutor and a
defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant
agrees to plead guilty or no contest in exchange for some agreement from the
prosecutor as the punishment. A plea bargain can also include the prosecutor
agreeing to charge a lesser crime, and dismissing some of the charges against
the defendant.”
Essentially, these definitions
indicate that plea bargaining is a pre-trial agreement between the prosecution
and the accused that is permitted by law. Because he is prepared to cooperate
with the prosecution, confess his guilt, and even offer to recompense the
victim in some situations, this mechanism facilitates the reduction or dilution
of his punishment.[3]
There is an infamous Latin phrase that
has evolved as a principal on the concept of plea bargaining called “nolo
contendere” which translates to “I do not wish to contest” along with a plea of
guilt.[4]
Plea bargains also known as trial
wavers refer to an agreement between the state and the defendant to forgo full
trial rights in exchange for a concession from the prosecution. It is a legal
procedure in which criminal defendants agree to recognize their guilt and/or
collaborate with the investigating authorities in return for some sort of
governmental reward. These advantages are typically in the form of reduced
charges and/or shorter sentences.[5]
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
·
ORIGIN
The idea of plea bargaining
originated in the United States and developed over time to become a well-known
aspect of the country's criminal justice system." Plea bargaining is the
pre-trial negotiations in which the accused enters a guilty plea in exchange
for a specific concession made by the prosecution. Usually, this entails
negotiations to lessen the severity of the charge or the sentence. In the
United States, plea bargaining accounts for nearly all the guilty pleas that arise
from over 75% of criminal cases.
Almost all offenders in federal
courts who enter a guilty plea are eligible for a 20 percent sentence
reduction. The US courts
examined whether plea bargaining is constitutional in the landmark Brady v.
United States[6]
the ruling, which affirmed the legitimacy of plea bargaining. Subsequently, the
court upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining in several subsequent
rulings."
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
of 2005 added Chapter XXI A to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
so introduced the notion of plea bargaining to India. The Act came into effect
on July 5, 2006. It was initially recommended as a substitute course of
action to address significant backlogs and gaps in the criminal cases pending
in the courts in the 142d Report of the Law Commission of India. To address the
growing number of criminal cases piling up, a committee led by Justice V.S.
Malimath, a former Chief Justice of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and
Karnataka, was formed during the NDA administration.
The plea-bargaining system was
also suggested by the Malimath Committee in its 2003 Report as a cooperative
way to expedite the resolution of criminal cases. Plea bargains were not
necessary in the past since there was no legal representation in the jury
system. The need wasn't realized until after the introduction of legal
representation in the 1960s. In the past, courts would use plea bargaining to
induce admissions. Plea bargaining is now utilized to reduce court
workloads and speed the resolution of criminal cases due to the criminal
justice system's modernization.
·
INTRODUCTION
OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
In its 142nd report, the Law
Commission proposed a plan for plea bargaining in India. In its report, the
commission noted that "statistical data regarding under-trial prisoners,
etc., is unavailable, resulting in a denial of justice," and that "in
several cases, the accused's time in jail before the start of trial exceeds the
maximum punishment which can be awarded to them if found guilty." The
report emphasized how urgent it is to put the scheme's enhanced version into
effect. The introduction of plea bargaining in India was met with some
opposition due to concerns about illiteracy, pressure from the prosecution to
convict innocent people, an increase in crime, and the possibility that
offenders would avoid punishment; the commission recommended that the benefits
and drawbacks be considered before implementing the policy. In its 154th Report,
the Law Commission reaffirmed the necessity of corrective legislative actions
to lessen the agony of inmates awaiting trial and to expedite the resolution of
criminal cases and appeals.
The Law Commission's 177th Report of
2001 also attempted to include the idea of plea bargaining, which was
recommended in the 154th report. Plea bargaining should be used to expedite the
criminal justice system and dispose of stockpiled cases, according to the
Report of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, 2003'*.
Thus, in its 142nd, 154th, and 177th Reports, the Committee reiterated the Law
Commission of India's recommendations.
·
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PLEA BARGAINING BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005
Before the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 2005, India did not have a system of plea bargaining. The Indian courts
initially stated that plea bargaining is an unconstitutional system because a
crime is done against a state and not only an individual. If a bargain is
struck between the accused and the state then the accused may not be punished.
That would reduce deterrence in society and would impact the entire system of
administrative justice in India.
The case of Madanlal Ramchander
Daga v. State of Maharashtra (1968)[7] was
the first case to address the validity of plea bargaining in front of the
Supreme Court of India. In this case, the court observed the practice of plea
bargaining to be wrong in the eyes of the law. It further noted that the court
may give a lesser sentence to the accused than the maximum prescribed sentence
if it feels so. However, any kind of bargain with the accused is not valid
under the eyes of the laws.
As per the ruling in Thippaswamy
v. State of Karnataka (1982)[8],
the Court ruled that it would be unconstitutional and a clear violation of
Article 21, to coerce or persuade an accused person to enter a guilty plea with
the expectation of a lenient penalty, only to increase the sentence in an
appeal or revision.
Furthermore, the Judge may be
influenced by plea bargaining, let go of a criminal, and might punish an
innocent person. It can be easily concluded that the Courts of Law of India
were not ready to accept the concept of plea bargaining in Indian criminal
jurisprudence. Even when the courts in India were taking many years to solve every
case there was a continuous increase in the backlog of cases especially in the
category of criminal cases.
The Courts in India continuously
addressed plea bargaining as unconstitutional until the enactment of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act. 2005 which introduced plea bargaining and that’s when the
concept was held legally valid in India.
The concept of plea bargaining is
contained in chapter XXIA of the CrPC under sections 265A to 265L. This part
was added by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005
COMPARATIVE
JURISPRUDENCE BETWEEN USA AND INDIA
In both India and the USA, the
concept of plea bargaining is practiced but not in an identical way.
·
PLEA
BARGAINING IN THE USA
In the United States, the defendant
has the option to enter one of three pleas: Not Guilty, Guilty, or Nolo
Contendere (no contest). The plea is interpreted as an implicit admission of
guilt or as the court's determination of the defendant's guilt under the Nolo
Contendere concept.[9]
The Court is not required to accept
the accused's plea, nevertheless. The Court has the discretion to accept or
reject such a plea based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case
that is brought before it. The court's job is to make sure the accused enters a
plea voluntarily and free from coercion or undue pressure. The right to
confidentiality must be granted to the accused. Please The congestion in
American prisons gave bargaining momentum.
Although the Sixth Amendment to the
US Constitution did not recognize plea bargaining, the needful was done by the
US judiciary. Plea bargaining was given recognition in the USA by the case of Santebello
v. New York (1971)[10].
It has been observed that plea
bargaining resolves about 90% of criminal cases in the United States of
America. Every minute, a case in the United States of America is resolved by
using the Nolo Contendere plea.[11]
The case of Lott v. United States
(1961)[12]
marked a turning point in this jurisprudence. In this instance, the court
decided that while admitting the plea of nolo contendere is a crucial step
towards proving the accused's guilt, it does not prove the case on its own.
In the United States of America, plea
bargaining is accepted in many situations, while there are certain exceptions.
Several judges and jurists have observed that this "agreement"
significantly lessens the workload of the judiciary. However, it has been seen
that coercion and making the accused pick between two unfavorable options can
taint this process. Additionally, it was mentioned in the Brady v. United
States (1970) case that an agreement cannot be deemed unlawful only because
there is a possibility that it would be lessened by coercion.
The American judiciary did not accept
the practice of plea bargaining during the colonial era, but it is now said
that if this system were to be taken away from its leaders, it would quickly
come to an end. As a result, this method has gone from being used quite rarely
in some areas to being used in most criminal cases in the United States of
America.[13]
·
PLEA
BARGAINING IN INDIA
Plea bargaining in India is not an
inherent feature of the constitution of India, but it has developed in response
to the plethora of cases pending before the Indian judiciary.
Section 265A to 265L (Chapter XXI A)
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 contains provisions concerning ‘Plea
Bargaining’.
Section 265A of CrPC provides who is
eligible to take benefit of plea bargaining. According to section 265A of CrPC
under the following circumstances, a person is allowed to take the benefit:[14]
1. When the maximum punishment for the
crime committed is 7 years.
2. The crime committed should not be
against any child below 14 years of age or a woman.
3. Where the offence committed in no way
affects India’s socio-economic condition.
Section 265B provides for the
procedure to apply plea bargaining. An affidavit and other case details must be included in the
application. After that, the accused may be questioned by the court to confirm
that they freely submitted this application. If the accused convinces the court
that the case is voluntary, the court allows a certain amount of time for a
mutually agreeable resolution. The Court may proceed from the stage at which
the application was filed before it if the accused is unable to persuade the
Court that he filed the application voluntarily or that he has previously been
found guilty of the same offence.
Plea bargaining in India has a
tripartite division. This division is elucidated as under:
1. Fact bargaining
2. Sentence Bargaining
3. Charge Bargaining
Plea Bargaining is a comparatively
novel phenomenon in India. Its jurisprudence has evolved with the coming of
cases from different areas.
In the case of Ranbir Singh v.
State (2011)[15],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the sentence of imprisonment for six
months without the benefit of plea bargaining. While awarding the sentence up
to 1/4th of the punishment prescribed also in a case of plea bargaining the
learned Trial Court was duty-bound to consider the mitigating factors.
·
PLEA
BARGAINING IN INDIA VS. IN USA[16]
Although the concept of plea
bargaining in India has been borrowed from the USA, it is still distinguishable
from the operation in the USA. The major differences between the two countries
are as follows:
1. Nature of Offence
No law in the USA forbids plea
bargaining for certain charges. Plea bargaining is an option available to anyone
accused of any crime. Section 265A in India does, however, list some
exceptions. In India, the following accused individuals are not eligible to
participate in plea bargaining:
a)
An accused person charged with an
offence punishable by death
b)
Accused person charged with an offence
punishable with life imprisonment
c)
Accused person charged with an offence
punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years
d)
Accused person charged with an offence
against women
e)
Accused person charged with an offence
against a child below fourteen years of age
f)
Accused person charged with an offence
that affects socioeconomic conditions of the country
2.
Role of Victim in Proceedings
The
victim plays a significant part in the plea-bargaining process under Indian
law. If an amicable resolution cannot be reached, the victim has the authority
to veto or reject. In contrast, the victim in the United States is not a party
to the plea-bargaining process.
3.
Mechanism available for
enforceability
In the United States, plea bargaining
applications are only submitted following the conclusion of the
prosecutor-accused parties' negotiation process. To guarantee that the
application for plea bargaining is submitted willingly by the accused, the
negotiating procedure with the accused individual does not even begin in India before
the application's filing. As a result, the likelihood of the accused being
forced or engaging in covert activities to submit a plea bargain application is
reduced.
4. Discretion of the Judge
In the United States, a judge does
not have discretion while considering a plea bargain application. Nonetheless,
in the Indian legal system, a judge's discretionary powers allow them to accept
or reject an accused person's plea bargain application.
5. Finality
In the Indian legal system, a
sentence awarded in a plea-bargaining case may be overturned by the court
through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution
or an SLP under Article 136 if the court finds the punishment to be
insufficient or protected by unfair circumstances. But in the USA, it comes to
an end.
In the United States, plea bargaining
results in convictions in about 90% of cases, but in India, it hardly accounts
for 10% of criminal cases. This discrepancy results from the ways that the
concepts of plea bargaining are applied in India and the United States.
Even though India's conviction rate
is far lower than that of the United States, it nevertheless works to guarantee
that the plea bargain application was submitted willingly. Justice must not be
denied, even if it is postponed. In India, choosing the less severe punishment
is a voluntary decision made by the accused rather than through plea
bargaining. Therefore, there's a good chance that plea bargaining in India
won't result in the sentencing of an innocent individual. On the other hand, cases
must be resolved quickly. Therefore, to lower the number of inmates awaiting
trial, the legislature must pursue reforms and give the courts the necessary
resources.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF
PLEA-BARGAINING
IN INDIA
The nation's Crime Record Bureau, the
Government of India is the repository of criminal records in the country. It
published data in its annual report titled “Crimes in India”. From the
published data about cases under the Indian Penal Code for the period 1981 to
2009; it emerges that[17]:
1. The annual number of cases for trial
increased from 21,11,791 in 1981 to 81,30,053 in 2009. out of these, a trial
could be completed only in 5,04,718 cases in 1981 and 11,72,081 cases in 2009
2. The number of cases pending trial
increased from 14,84,483 in 1981 to 69,57,972 in 2009. Thus, in the last 28
years, the pendency of cases has grown by over 5 times
3. while the trial in 23.9% of the cases
was completed in 1981, the figure came down to 13.632% in 2009; similarly, the
percentage of cases pending trial increased from 70.3% in 1981 to 85.58% in
2009
4. Out of the trial completed, the case
ending in acquittal or discharge was 8.9% in 1990, rose to 10.0% in 1997, settled
at 8.3% in 2006, and then came down to 7.34% in 2009. on the other hand, 8.5%
of the cases put to trial ended in convection in 1990 but the figure gradually came
down to 5.26% in 2009
The government's statistics, which were
gathered beginning in 2015, unequivocally demonstrated how seldom India used
the plea-bargaining procedure. Plea bargaining was used in just 4,816 instances
in 2015, or 0.045%, of the 10,502,256 cases under general penal law that were
undergoing trial.
It was around 4,887 cases out of
11,107,472 in 2016, which is a decrease of 0.043%. In 2017, there was a small
increase to 0.27%, with 31,857 cases out of 11,524,490 resulting in plea
agreements. This was not a persistent pattern, either, as in 2018 there was a
total drop in the number of cases, with only 20,062 out of 12,106,309, and a meagre
0.16% of cases resolved by plea agreements[18].
Regretfully, in fifteen years, this
statistic hasn't even surpassed 1%. The number of cases pending increased
throughout this period, albeit not as quickly as it had previously. Similarly,
information on the number of inmates awaiting trial indicates a rise since
2006. As a result, plea bargaining in India fell short of achieving both of its
two intended goals.
As a result, the primary goal of
speedy preliminary has not been completely and successfully realized. Plea
bargaining gained traction in the United States because it effectively granted
examiners influence, which they could use against respondents to get them to
plead guilty and postpone preliminary hearings. Yet, the system designed in
India does not have any such influence on public investigators or appointed
authorities. Examiners, for example, have minimal room to participate in the
negotiation round or force a plea, and courts cannot dismiss a chosen
settlement.
No provision in the existing
plea-bargaining law permits courts to reject a settlement reached by the
meetings. Nonetheless, the adjudicator should maintain a high level of
vigilance to avoid prosecution intimidation and any possibility of
contamination. Another result is a difference in the negotiating power of the
arraignment and the safeguard. An overwhelming indicting side can undoubtedly
persuade an innocent respondent to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced
punishment. Illicit plea bargaining may also occur between actual
offenders and honest accused, with the former exploiting corrupt authorities to
avoid the criminal justice system.
·
JUDICIAL
APPROACH IN INDIA
The Indian judiciary has been
reluctant to adopt this previous to the 2005 revision and has repeatedly
rejected the idea of plea-bargaining, even after repeated recommendations from
the Law Commission of India. This was evident since the courts upheld the ban
on plea bargaining despite these recommendations. In Madanlal Ramachander
Daga v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Court made the following
observation in one of the first cases where it examined the idea of plea
bargaining: "The Hon'ble Court thinks that it is very wrong for a court to
enter into a bargain of this character. Offences should be tried and punished
according to the guilt of the accused." The Court may issue a reduced
sentence if it determines that leniency is warranted given the circumstances of
the case.
The Apex Court maintained its
disapproval of the idea of plea bargaining in Muralidhar Megh Raj v. State
of Maharashtra[19],
where the trial magistrate fined each of the appellants a small fine after they
entered a guilty plea to the charge. The court noted:
"To start, we are free to
acknowledge our suspicion that the appellants hurriedly entered guilty
pleas—possibly as a result of a loose, tripartite agreement on a light sentence
rather than a nolo contendere stance."
The idea of plea bargaining has long
been resisted by the Indian Supreme Court because it requires the accused to
give up his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial in exchange for a
lighter sentence. However, the Gujarat High Court The basic purpose of law is
to offer quick, inexpensive, and easy justice through the settlement of
disputes, including the criminal trial process. As a result, fundamental
modifications in the legal system are unavoidable. There ought not to be anything
unchanging. Thus, plea bargaining might be considered a measure and redressal
that will introduce a new dimension within the field of legal changes."[20]
The Law Commission identified
shortcomings in the nation's criminal justice system in its 142nd and 154th
reports. noted in State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor[21]
that they valued this process. After examining several different criminal
justice systems, they developed a case for the introduction of plea bargaining
in India. They stated that the plan would be applied experimentally to a small
number of criminals as an alternative to the right to a fair trial guaranteed
by the Constitution. It was intended to be rendered irrelevant in cases of
grave misconduct, particularly involving women.
REASONS FOR
FAILURE OF PLEA BARGAINING
The data available in the Indian
context shows a very unsettling rate of plea-bargaining efficacy in India. According
to government research that is available from the National Crime Records
Bureau, in 2015, just 4815 instances—or 0.045%—of the 10502256 cases that were
awaiting trial under the penal statutes chose to enter into a plea agreement.
In 2016, the percentage dropped
to 0.043%, with 4887 out of 11107472 cases involving plea deals. In 2017, the
percentage of cases that went through plea negotiation increased to 0.27%, with
31587 out of 11,524,490 cases. This was not a recurring pattern, either, as in
2018 there was a complete drop in the number of cases, with just 20,062 out of
12,106,309, and 0.16% of cases resolved by plea agreements.[22]
The fact that the percentage of cases
choosing plea negotiation compared to all cases hasn't even surpassed 1% in the
last eighteen years is remarkable and unsettling. Therefore, plea bargaining in
India was unable to achieve either of the two goals it was intended to
accomplish—reducing the backlog of cases or stopping the rise in the number of
convicts awaiting trial.[23]
The practical challenges associated
with implementing plea bargaining are the reason it did not catch on in India. According
to the Economic Survey of 2019 released by the Union Finance Ministry, the
average time taken to resolve disputes in India is 30 months at the very least,
compared to 6 months in the EU and likewise in the USA. In India, the trial,
first appeal, second appeal, and ultimate appeal can all continue for life if
the accused is fortunate enough. At that point, the accused is more likely to
faint without being found guilty.
Furthermore, there is a police slang
phrase that states that the longer the case is tried, the greater the
likelihood that the accused will be found not guilty. This is because, over
time, either the victim loses interest in the case or becomes frustrated with
the excessive length of the trial, or the witnesses begin to lose their memory,
becoming hostile or contradicting their accounts during the investigation.
India has a glaringly insufficient
number of judicial officers. There are generally 20% of open positions that
remain empty, and this percentage increases for higher-level judiciary
positions. The difference between the rate of disposal of current cases and the
new caseload can be reduced by addressing this issue. Moreover, because they
must manage many cases with limited resources, public prosecutors in India just
do not have the time to concentrate on resolving every case on their docket by
going above and beyond. Despite their innate desire to wrap up cases as soon as
possible, judges must actively participate in the process to dispel any
suspicions that the defendants were coerced. Even the wealthiest individuals
may go bankrupt if they choose to pursue litigation in court due to the
exorbitant costs of litigation in the United States.
Even the wealthiest individuals may
go bankrupt if they choose to pursue litigation in court due to the exorbitant
costs of litigation in the USA. The low cost of litigation in India has turned
what should have been a blessing in disguise into a nightmare, as accused
parties choose to fight it out in court rather than accept a plea deal.
There's a good chance that genuine
offenders and innocent defendants will engage in illicit plea negotiations,
with the former using dishonest officials to get out of the judicial system. A similar
incident occurred recently in NCR Delhi when a person claimed to be the driver
of a Mercedes car in a hit-and-run case before authorities determined that he
was attempting to preserve the real culprit, of course, money under the influence.
In the plea-bargaining version used
in India. The victim has all responsibility. It has been observed in numerous
instances that the victim is demanding a hefty sum from the accused, which
prevents a settlement from happening. There is no mediation authority, such as
the district legal services authority, to help with the settlement process in
criminal cases, unlike in civil proceedings.
The accused people's fear of being
found guilty is another one of these reasons. Charge bargaining is not allowed,
unlike in the USA. Whether a person is found guilty or not, they are still in
the criminal justice system and will be subject to all penalties and
disqualifications associated with their conviction. A person who chooses to
engage in plea negotiations must deal with the social and moral fallout from
their conviction. A well-off man would rather go to trial than enter a guilty
plea and suffer the penalties. With the Indian criminal court system's high
acquittal rate and the years of excessive wait, he can afford to pursue his
case until he is ultimately exonerated.
HOW DOES
BNSS AFFECT THE SYSTEM OF PLEA
ARGAINING
IN INDIA
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION
Although the amendment aimed to
address the issue of under-preliminary detainees by directing the court to
grant the accused the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act whenever it is
applicable. At that moment, Section 12 of the aforementioned Act states that the
perpetrator will not be disgraced. Sections 265 and 428 are also applicable to
the plea negotiating sentence. Nonetheless, there is a lack of attentiveness
among preliminary inmates. Provisions should be made in the section to make
post-trial agents and prison directors feel obliged by a feeling of honour to
conduct meetings in detention facilities informing the under-preliminary
inmates about such an advantage that may be obtained.
To provide the most extreme assurance
of the accused's privileges and the successful execution of plea negotiating
measures, it is necessary to trace the totality of the interactions between the
investigator and the accused. This is a record that ensures that the terms of
the agreement are not deviated from without the express agreement of both
parties. These preliminary communications must be available and a copy provided
to the court so that the adjudicator may also determine if the two parties have
actively participated in the arrangement. This need for the report of plea bargains
may be feasible if there are no procedural irregularities that erect barriers
to its acceptance. This will necessitate reforms in the legal culture of plea
bargaining.
The concept of plea bargaining, which
was introduced in India 10 years ago, has been slow to catch on, owing to a
lack of awareness among under-preliminary inmates and court employees. The
concept is more of a system of convenience and mutual benefit than a problem of
ethical excellence, legitimacy, or lawfulness. There is an unavoidable need for
radical transformation in the criminal justice system. They have limited the
materiality in general, as well as the scope of plea bargaining. When a concept
is carried out into an overall collection of regulations, it should be done in
a way that anticipates the obstacles that may be considered in the exploratory
stage. If residents are to be encouraged to adopt the alternative treatment of
plea bargaining, there is an urgent need for clarity and consistency in the
procedures.
To summarize, in India, plea
bargaining is not new. When India acquired its constitution in 1950, it already
accepted it. Self-incrimination is prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Indian
constitution. Many accuse plea bargaining of violating the article. Yet, with
the passage of time and the burden on the courts, the Indian court has realized
the necessity for plea bargaining in the Indian legal system. It is difficult
to embrace change at first, but society and our legal system both need to
progress. Everything has pros and downsides that must be considered to make a
sound judgment. In any case, rejecting anything only based on its drawbacks
would be unjustified. In India, the notion of plea bargaining is still
emerging, and it is unrealistic to expect it to be perfect. Only debate,
conversations, and discourses may help to change it.
The plea-bargaining component has
evolved into a fair and sustainable instrument of justice, and there is now a
fundamental need to consider the pitfalls of the existing plea-bargaining
arrangement to strengthen it and make it more proficient. If the limitations of
the existing plea-bargaining instrument are identified and resolved
effectively, such a shift would be substantial and would stimulate the growth
of India's criminal justice system.
REFERENCES
[1] Declaration of Basic Principles
of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Adopted by General Assembly
resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985, OHCHR,
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinte
rest/pages/victimsofcrimeandabuseofpower.aspx
[2] Bryan Garner, Black’s Law
Dictionary ( 8th edn, Thomson &West 2004) 1190
[3] Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara (2019) SCC Appeal (Civil), 2432 of 2019.
[4] Varsha Gulaya, Tracing the
Development of Bargaining in India [Part I], CCLSNLUJ, (Mar. 13, 2019). ,
https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/tracing-the-development-of-plea-bargaining-in-indiapart
[5] Anshika Chadha, Plea Bargaining
In India: A Ship With Holes, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA,
www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1784-plea-bargaining-in-india-a-ship-with-holes.html.
[9] West’s Encyclopedia of American
Law
[10] Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S.
257 (1971)
[11] Albert Alschuler W, The
Prosecutor's Role in Plea Bargaining. 36 U. Chi. L. Rev 1968; 50:50.
[12] Lott v. United States, 367 U.S.
421 (1961)
[13] "Michael P O, Seeking
Consistency in Judicial Review of Securities Arbitration: An Analysis of the
Manifest Disregard of the Law Standard, (May 28, 2011),
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol64/iss3/18.
[14] Diganth Raj Sehgal, Plea
Bargaining Laws: India And United States of America - iPleaders, IPleaders (May
30, 2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/plea-bargaining-laws-india-united-states-america/.
[15] Ranbir Singh v. State, SCC
Online 3737 (SC 2011).
[16] Plea Bargaining in India and USA
-A Comparative Study, Enhelion Blogs (Feb. 18, 2021),
https://enhelion.com/blogs/2021/02/18/plea-bargaining-in-india-and-usa-a-comparative-study/.
[17]
Verma JK. Plea bargaining concept and potential 225 (All India reporter,
Nagpur 1st edn., 2011).
[18] Putra G, A critical analysis of
plea-bargaining in India, (July 14, 2023),
https://www.criminallawjournal.org/article/4/1-1-4-416.pdf.
[19] Muralidhar Megh Raj v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1929
[20] . Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs
State Of Maharashtra 1976 AIR 1929; Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State
of Gujarat and Anr 1980CriLJ553; Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC
854; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, AIR 1999 SC 164.
[21] State of Gujrat v. Natwar
Harchandji Thakor, . 2005 CriLJ 2957
[23] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice#:~:text=In%20any%20given%20year%2C%2098,from%20the%20American%20Bar%20Association
Article Information
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE CONCEPT OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
Authors: ADYA GUPTA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/20
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.