Open Access Research Article
PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA – THE NEW NORMAL FOR SOLVING LEGAL CASES IN HIGH GEAR
Published Paper
Article Details
PLEA BARGAINING
IN INDIA – THE NEW NORMAL FOR SOLVING LEGAL CASES IN HIGH GEAR
AUTHORED BY - PRISSHA
CHAWLA
ABSTRACT
The increasing quantity of criminal cases has battered Indian courts. Due
to the chronic delay in resolving the
cases, jails are overcrowded with prisoners who are jailed without facing a trial. In reaction to the abysmal state of
the legal system, the concept of plea bargaining was developed in India. It was endorsed as an effective method of
resolving case backlog and facilitating
the criminal justice system's process.[1] According
to then CJI Y.K Sabharwal, the introduction of plea bargaining in India would not only speed up the criminal
system, but would
also act as a restorative form of justice in which victims would be
equal players and receive adequate recompense. Plea Bargaining emerged
as a compromise to ensure
that criminals were appropriately punished
consistent with the policy of the law to ensure
that punishment not only serves as deterrent to offenders, but
has to be in the societal interest too. The rise of plea bargaining is commonly attributed to the nineteenth century, but
it actually stretches back hundreds
of years to the introduction of confession law and has most likely existed for
more than eight centuries. [2]Maybe
our country's legislature created a reasonable solution to the problem of pending lawsuits with these
reasons in mind. The Criminal Procedure Code was revised, and a new chapter XXIA incorporating plea bargaining procedures
was added by the Amendment Act of
2005. Though the notion of plea bargaining is not new in the legal world, it was first introduced to India in 2006, and its consequences and functionality are examined in the article.
KEY WORDS: Plea Bargaining, Prosecution, Defense, CrPC,
Negotiation, Indian Judiciary, Law Commission
INTRODUCTION
The basic goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the
individual's right that has been infringed
by other individuals, hence the criminal justice system must design a redressal mechanism
to safeguard the individual's right.
The rate of crime in the country
is increasing as the
country's population grows. As a result, the courts are inundated with criminal
cases, and there are many cases
pending before various criminal courts due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure for the disposal of
these matters.
As
the saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied," and in the
current situation, victims suffer as
a result of delays in the trial process and having to wait for a longer period
of time to achieve justice, which causes them to lose faith in the judicial system. However, while preserving the rights of the victims,
the rights of the accused
should not be disregarded because,
during the procedures, the state and the accused are not in the same
position, therefore their rights must also be safeguarded by following a fair and swift
trial.
While offering
a fair trial, the procedure becomes slow, time demanding, and expensive. In the current
state of the criminal justice
system, speedy trial has lost its meaning,
resulting in a large number of under-trial convicts. Though
the speedy trial is not expressly guaranteed by the constitution, it is an important aspect of the criminal justice
system. If there is a delay in the judicial
proceedings, it is more likely that the victims will be denied justice, and the
prisoners will suffer as a result
of spending more time in judicial custody than the actual punishment to be given
to them.
Because
of these circumstances, the courts in India needed to implement an alternate
dispute resolution process.
As a result, the concept
of "Plea bargaining" was established in India as part of the alternative dispute resolution
system to solve these challenges, minimise the burden of the court, provide
rapid hearing of cases, and ensure speedy
justice for the people. The Criminal Procedure Amendment
Act 2005, which went into effect on July 5, 2006, introduced the formal recognition of the notion
of plea bargaining[3]. [4]In India’s
jurisprudence there are mainly 3 types of plea bargaining – Charge, Sentence and
Fact.
Charge bargaining is a popular
and well-known type of plea.
It entails negotiating the particular charges or offences that will be brought against
the defendants at trial. A prosecutor will usually drop the
higher or other charges counts in exchange
for a guilty plea to a lesser
charge.
Sentence
negotiating entails agreeing to a guilty plea for the sated charge rather than
a lesser charge in exchange for a
shorter sentence. It justifies the prosecution's need to go to trial and prove its
case. It gives the defendant
the possibility for a reduced sentence.
Fact
bargaining entails admitting certain facts, removing the requirement for the
prosecutor to prove them, in
exchange for an agreement not to put certain other facts into evidence.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research approach
that is employed is qualitative, with a comparison of different judiciary decisions made, as well as descriptive and analytical methods
used in the formulation of this research paper. This paper is built on previously
available information, which has been examined to create an evolution of this
research. The doctrinal technique i.e. various reports, papers, legal
provisions, case laws etc have been used in
this paper's preparation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
What is Plea Bargaining?
[5]It
is an alternative form of redressal of disputes or a pre-trial negotiation in
which there is an agreement between
the prosecution and the defence where the accused pleads guilty or no contest
to criminal charges and as a result of which the prosecution drops or reduce some of the charges and recommends that the
judge enter a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defence.
In
general, it is a consensual agreement between the prosecution and the defence
under the judicial preview in which
the prosecution makes a concession in the charges as well as the sentencing to the accused
in exchange for the accused accepting the criminal accusations.
[6]PROS OF PLEA BARGAINING
Ø Plea bargaining
reduces the burden on the courts and allows the court to devote more time to more
serious offences.
Ø Plea bargaining aids in reducing the costs associated with the trial
process.
Ø It benefits
the accused since
it decreases the charges and, in some cases, sentences, resulting in less
time in jail.
Ø [7]It is also useful
in minimising unwanted
media coverage of cases, which drags the problem out in the open and causes
unnecessary delays in justice.
Ø It aids in reducing
the number of under-trial prisoners in jails by expediting the disposition of cases.
[8]CONS OF PLEA BARGAINING
Ø [9]Plea
bargaining abrogates the accused's right to a fair trial. To avoid the lengthy judicial processes, most accused
relinquish their right to a free trial and admit to committing the crime.
The accused not only waives
the right to a free trial,
but also the right to silence,
because in plea bargaining, the accused is required to confess to each and every
part of the offence committed by him.
Ø There is a
certainty in plea bargaining that the accused will be convicted and labelled as a convict, and will have to face the
punishment, which can take the form of imprisonment or penalties.
Ø Plea
bargaining can be utilised only when there is strong evidence against the
accused and the accused is
confident that he would be convicted for a longer sentence, as in most situations, the accused may be released
owing to lesser evidence.
Ø In a
country like India, where the majority of the offences covered by plea
bargaining are committed by people
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, the accused
are often unable to pay the victims.
Ø Other
procedures, such as compounding of charges, are preferred since they are less time consuming, and there is a potential
that the accused will be discharged without being labelled as a criminal.
FEATURES OF THE MODEL OF PLEA
BARGAINING IN INDIA
1. The accused
individual must take the initiative to advance the legal machinery for negotiated pleas only for offences with a maximum penalty
of seven years.
2.
The plea negotiating application must be filed in the
court where the offence is being tried.
This is where the Indian method
differentiates from the American model,
in which the application is made by the public prosecutor and the accused
following the conclusion of discussions
between them.
3.
The court must examine the accused in camera upon
receipt of the application, and if satisfied
that the application was filed voluntarily, the victim, the accused, the public prosecutor, and the investigating officer,
if the case is one instituted on a police report, are given time to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition
of the case, which may include the
accused paying compensation to the victim and other expenses incurred during the case.
4. The judge
is not a bystander, but rather plays an important
role in the proceedings. The court is responsible for ensuring that the entire
process is carried
out with the accused's complete and voluntary consent. When an
acceptable resolution of the case has been reached,
the court is obligated to dismiss the case after giving compensation to the victim
in accordance with the settlement reached and after
hearing the involved
parties on the subject
of penalty quantum.
It must then impose the sentence, which
might range from one-fourth
to one-half of the stipulated
punishment for that offence.
5.
The legislation also requires that the judgement be
rendered in open court. A clause in favour
of the accused has been introduced, stating that the statement or facts made by an accused
in a plea bargaining application shall not be used for any other reason.
6.
In the instance of plea bargaining, the Court's
decision is final, and no appeal may be filed in any
court against it.
7.
Section 265A states that plea bargaining cannot
be used in cases where the punishment is more than seven years in prison and/or the offence affects
the socio-economic condition of the
country (to be notified by the Central Government) or has been committed against a woman or a child under
the age of fourteen. The method is also only available for first-time offenders.
The
careful approach of the Act has been highlighted after reading the
aforementioned portions on plea bargaining. A number of riders linked
to the plea bargaining model in India
have made it exclusively available to criminals committing the crime,
punishable by imprisonment of not
more than seven years, provided that the accused is not a minor and the crime committed by him is not socioeconomic in
nature
LEGALITIES WITH RESPECT TO CASE LAWS
The defendants were charged with selling contaminated food in violation
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. The Court had the
impression that the accused had pled guilty before the magistrate court under a casual three-sided agreement that resembled plea bargaining in the United States.
The judge in this case expressed his
anguish at the agreement issue, effectively repeating that the concept of plea bargaining is not permitted
under Indian criminal
law. Simultaneously, the scholarly adjudicator expressed his
favourable opinion of supplication haggling and advocated that the juristic fraternity's concept
should be considered.
It
is a classic example of the court's conventional thinking in which the judge
held that the case should
be decided according to the guilt of the convicted.
The Supreme
Court went a step farther
and ruled that plea bargaining was unconstitutional and would cause uproar throughout the country. As stated in Kasambhai
v. Region of Gujarat, the possibility of plea bargaining under Indian settings
is particularly vulnerable to abuse. In another case, the Supreme
Court issued a landmark decision
concerning plea bargaining, concluding that plea bargaining violates
Article 21 of the Constitution.
The
Supreme Court's perspective in this case is the pinnacle of the court's
position in the preceding case. The Supreme
Court dismissed the High Court's motion, allowing a supplication settlement and reminding us that the concept does
not exist in the Indian criminal law sphere.
Finally, in the aforementioned case, the Gujarat
High Court upheld
the constitutionality of plea bargaining, observing that
"the object of the law is to provide easy, cheap, and speedy
justice by resolving
cases, including criminal
cases, and considering the current realistic scenario of pendency
and delay in disposal of cases, reforms
in the administration of law and justice are unavoidable." As a
result, plea bargaining can bring a new
dimension to judicial reform.
Initially,
the Indian judiciary was hostile to and wary of plea bargains. Despite the [15]Law Commission's recommendations in its 142nd,
154th, and 177th reports for the introduction of plea bargaining in the Indian
judicial system, the apex court held this concept
unconstitutional in a series
of judgments after studying the challenges that the Indian judicial system
faces in disposing of criminal cases and also comparing the challenges to other countries and observing their
way of overcoming these challenges. The Law Commission advocated in its 142nd report
that plea bargaining be introduced into the Indian legal system on an
experimental basis only for offences
with punishments of less than seven years. In its 154th report,
the Law Commission proposed adding a new chapter to the CrPC to allow for plea bargaining. In 2003, the Mali math committee on criminal justice
system changes endorsed
a law commission report recommending the use of plea bargaining in the Indian judicial system.
[16]The Criminal
Procedure Amendment Act 2005 established the notion of plea bargaining, and a new chapter
XXIA including Sections 265A to 265L was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, in which Sections 265A to
265L discussed the legislative framework of plea bargaining in India.
Section 265A addresses this application. This concept applies
to: a) accused who have not been charged
with offences punishable by more than 7 years in prison, life imprisonment, or
death sentence; b) an officer
in charge has forwarded a report to the
magistrate under Section
173 of the CrPC; and c) a person against
whom a magistrate has taken cognizance on a complaint
after examining the witnesses
and complaint under Section 200 and has issued the process under Section
204.
There are certain exceptions for the applicability of this concept
a)
It should not apply to offences that have a negative impact on the country's socioeconomic status.
b)
It should also not be used to juveniles as defined in Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice
Act of 2000. According to Section 265B of the CrPC, the application for plea bargaining must be made in the
same court where the given offence is being tried.
[17]Furthermore, Section
265C of the CrPC establishes standards for mutually
agreeable disposition, and Section 265D of the CrPC requires
a report of mutually satisfactory disposition signed by the
presiding officer to be presented to the court.
If
the report follows the guidelines, it is dismissed by the court and a judgement
is issued. The decision can be
appealed under Art.136 by a special leave petition and a writ petition under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution.
If
no appeal is filed, the judgement is declared final. According to Section 265I
of the CrPC, the court decreases the
time period of punishment based on the time spent in judicial custody for that
specific instance.
According
to Section 265K of the CrPC, the accused's statement recorded in the plea bargaining will not be used in another offence other than the offence of
plea bargaining.
SUGGESTIONS
Plea
bargaining was adopted in India as a cure for the overcrowded judiciary. Every
person involved in the case benefits from the plea negotiating process
since the prosecution is freed of the
technicalities and lengthy discussions, and the accused can walk free. However,
even after a decade of introduction, this notion has not been successful in India. Many causes
could be at blame, including
a lack of understanding of the concept among the under trial convicts and police. Judicial oversight should be
allowed to ensure the equitable implementation of plea bargaining in the criminal justice
system. To make the concept
successful, the identified flaws must be
addressed in order for the system to function. If plea bargaining is used
effectively in the criminal justice
system, it will almost certainly alleviate the problem of prolonged trials and lead
to the quick disposition of cases.
Following methods can be adopted for the efficient
working of the plea bargaining
1. A provision
for plea negotiating hearings in open court should be provided, and before reaching any settlements, the court should
take into account
the victim's and accused's financial
and social circumstances.
2. A committee
should be established that will look into the cases referred by the court to
deal with the process of plea
bargaining, so that the decision made is voluntary and in a free environment, and if no decision is made, the cases will be returned to the court itself.
3. A clause
should be included that requires the court to tell the accused about the notion
of plea negotiating before issuing
the summons
4. A provision
for knowledge should be included, in which jail superintendents should tell convicts
about plea bargaining so that they can use this right efficiently. The jail superintendents should be required to
conduct such awareness campaigns.
.
CONCLUSION
The controversial idea of Plea Bargaining is more a component of accommodation and mutual advantage than a problem
of profound quality,
lawfulness, or legality. There is an obvious need for radical
transformation in the criminal justice
system. It could be a much-needed advancement, but only if there is the
potential of a rapid and small case goal. If the only motivation for the criminal equity framework is to reintegrate hoodlums into society by subjecting them to determining sentences
in jail, then plea bargaining loses the majority of its appeal. If known,
the various partners of crime' and the criminal equity framework are practising plea bargaining. Putting this
process under regular scrutiny increases the likelihood of fair deals in this bargaining. Plea bargaining is an unavoidable component of the adversarial system
in the current environment.
The
purpose of this paper has been to demonstrate that there is no inherent
inadequacy in presenting plea
bargaining in an adjusted structure in the Indian criminal justice framework. Plea bargaining, as it is presented in
India, is correct on a fundamental level, or a penance of equity at a higher level of regulatory
production. An examination of both sides' arguments suggests that plea bargaining is a fair cycle in the disposition
of criminal cases that should not undermine the obstructive impact of law and discipline, produce fair treatment
problems, or result in other heinous
results. The plea-bargaining structure, in fact, is one of mutual advantage.
It is assumed that any plea-bargaining framework in which both parties have
equal access to similar assets and
the plea is made consciously and astutely is essentially valid and does not
violate the fundamental tenets of criminal law.
[6] https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-procedure/the-pros-and-cons-of-plea- bargaining.html
[8] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/plea- bargaining-pros-cons.htm
[10] 1976 AIR 1929, 1977 SCR (1) 1
[14] 2005 CriLJ 2957, (2005)
1 GLR 709
[16] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1732853/
[17] https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/CRPC/crpc-chapter-xxia-section-265a-265b-265c-265d-265e-265f-265g-265h-
265i-265j-265k-265l-plea-bargaining.html
Article Information
PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA – THE NEW NORMAL FOR SOLVING LEGAL CASES IN HIGH GEAR
Authors: PRISSHA CHAWLA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/05/31
- Volume 2
- 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.