ANALYSIS OF
PLEA
BARGAINING
IN INDIA
PRESENTED BY
AKSHIT DUBEY (094)
NUPUR SAXENA (070)
PRACHI SHARMA (057)
INTRODUCTION
Plea bargaining is a pre-trial negotiation between the
accused and the prosecution where the accused
agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain
concessions by the prosecution.
It is a bargain wherein a defendant pleads responsible
to a lesser fee and the prosecutors in go backdrop
more serious charges. It is based on the principle of
‘Nolo Contendere’, literally meaning ‘I do not wish to
contend’. This concept can only be used in the case of a
criminal offence.
In civil cases, the victim cannot make use of this tool.
Secondly, the accused or defendant in this concept
negotiates with the prosecutor.
Thirdly, here both parties make an agreement where
the defendant promises that he will plead his guilt in
front of the court, and in return, the prosecutor makes
some concessions in his punishment and lessens his
punishment to some extent.
SALIENT
FEATURES
1. Negotiation Process: Plea bargaining involves negotiations between
the defendant and the prosecution, typically facilitated by their
respective legal representatives.
2. Admission of Guilt: The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no
contest to one or more charges in exchange for concessions from the
prosecution.
3. Concessions: The prosecution may offer concessions such as
reducing the number or severity of charges, recommending a lighter
sentence, or dropping certain charges altogether.
4. Speedy Resolution: Plea bargaining expedites the legal process by
avoiding lengthy trials, reducing court backlog, and saving resources
for both the prosecution and the defendant.
5. Certainty of Outcome: Provides some level of certainty for both
parties involved by avoiding the uncertainties associated with a trial
and potential jury verdicts.
6. Voluntary Agreement: Both parties must voluntarily agree to the
terms of the plea bargain, and the court must approve the
agreement.
PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIAN
CONTEXT
Plea Bargaining isn't an indigenous concept of Indian criminal law. It is a part of the
recent development of the Indian Criminal Justice System (ICJS). It became inculcated in
the Indian Criminal Justice System after thinking about the weight of long-status cases
on the Judiciary. Section 265A to 265L, Chapter XXIA of the Criminal Procedure Code
deals with the idea of Plea Bargaining. It was inserted into the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, of 2005.
The Indian concept of plea bargaining is inspired by the Doctrine of Nolo Contendere. i.c.
plea of no contest. This doctrine has been by India under consideration for introduction
and employment in the criminal justice system.
Reasons behind Incorporation of the Concept of Plea Bargaining Under Indian
Jurisprudence -
The concept of plea bargaining was introduced in Indian jurisprudence to tackle the
overwhelming challenges faced by the judiciary. These challenges include a significant
backlog of cases, which leads to delays in justice delivery and undermines public trust in
the legal system. Common complaints involve the sheer volume of cases and the burden
on courts.
Plea bargaining addresses these issues by allowing defendants to plead guilty in
exchange for reduced sentences or other concessions. This approach streamlines the
judicial process, ensuring quicker case resolutions and relieving the strain on courts.
Ultimately, incorporating plea bargaining aims to improve the efficiency of the criminal
justice system, uphold social justice principles, and bolster socio-economic development
by restoring public confidence in the legal system.
Types of Plea Bargaining
There are several types of plea bargaining, which can be used to
resolve criminal cases. Some of the most common types of plea
bargaining include:
Charge Bargaining: Charge bargaining involves the
defendant pleading guilty to a less serious charge in exchange
for a reduction in the severity of the punishment.
Sentence Bargaining: Sentence bargaining involves the
defendant pleading guilty to the original charge in exchange
for a promise of a lighter sentence.
Fact Bargaining: Fact bargaining involves the defendant
pleading guilty to certain facts or elements of the crime in
exchange for the prosecutor agreeing not to introduce other
facts that might aggravate the sentence.
Count Bargaining: Count bargaining involves the defendant
pleading guilty to some of the charges against them in
exchange for the dismissal of other charges.
Sentence Recommendation Bargaining: Sentence
recommendation bargaining involves the prosecution
recommending a specific sentence to the judge in exchange
for the defendant's guilty plea.
Process of Plea Bargaining
In India, the process of plea bargaining follows a structured legal
framework outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code, of 1973, and the
plea-bargaining scheme introduced in 2005. Here's an overview of the
process:
Application: The accused files an application expressing their
willingness to plead guilty and seek plea bargaining.
Evaluation: The court evaluates the application and considers
factors such as the nature of the offence, the evidence available,
and the victim's consent.
Negotiation: The prosecutor and the accused negotiate the terms
of the plea bargain, including the charge or sentence reduction.
Recording of Statement: The court records the statement of the
accused, ensuring that they understand the implications of the
plea bargain.
Pronouncement of Judgment: If the court accepts the plea
bargain, it pronounces the judgment based on the agreed-upon
terms.
Advantages of Plea Bargaining
Reduced Caseloads and Court Backlogs: Plea bargaining helps expedite
the legal process by resolving cases more quickly. This is particularly
beneficial in jurisdictions with overcrowded court dockets, as it allows the
legal system to handle a larger volume of cases efficiently.
Resource Efficiency: Plea bargains can save significant resources, both for
the prosecution and the defence, by avoiding lengthy trials. This includes
the cost of court proceedings, legal representation, and other associated
expenses.
Certainty for the Defendant: Defendants may choose plea bargains to
secure a more predictable outcome. By agreeing to a negotiated plea,
they can have a clearer understanding of the consequences they will face,
which may be preferable to the uncertainty of a trial.
Avoidance of Harsh Penalties: In some cases, plea bargains allow
defendants to avoid more severe charges or penalties that they might face
if they went to trial and were found guilty. This can be especially appealing
when there is a risk of a higher sentence after a full trial..
Judicial Efficiency: Plea bargaining enables judges to focus their time
and attention on more complex cases that require a trial.
Victim Consideration: Plea bargaining can provide victims with a quicker
resolution and closure, sparing them the emotional stress and potential
trauma of a trial.
INDIAN JUDICIAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS
Muralidhar Meghraj Loya vs State of Maharashtra: The Supreme
Court criticized plea bargaining, stating it intrudes upon societal
interests.
Khasam bhai vs State of Gujarat: The Court deemed plea
bargaining against public policy, regretting its acceptance by
magistrates. It labelled the practice as highly reprehensible, illegal,
and unconstitutional, fostering corruption and collusion.
Thippu Swamy vs State of Karnataka: The Court held inducing an
accused to plead guilty under promise or assurance violates Article
21 of the Constitution. It mandated setting aside convictions
obtained through such means and allowing the accused to defend
themselves.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chanderlok: The Apex Court
discouraged plea bargaining, deeming it unconstitutional and
illegal. It asserted that disposing of criminal cases based on plea
bargaining isn't permissible.
CRITICISM OF PLEA BARGAINING
Offenders are disposed off without proper punishments and there
results a minimum regard for public safety.
The main foundation of the criminal system which is 'crime and
punishment' was undermined.
Plea bargaining is a result of discretion and infringement in
sentencing.
Bargain-based justice is always more for the accused than it is for the
state and public.
Unfair sentences will only be in fair and it will be imposed on
defendants who did not plead guilty.
Plea bargaining is dominated by practical considerations which is
irrelevant to the disposition of criminal cases.
Plea bargaining allows unconstitutional police practices to go
unchecked by sidestepping formal court proceedings and due process.
Plea bargaining works as a main source of inmate riots attributable to
unwarranted variation.
CONCLUSION
In summary, plea bargaining remains a contentious practice, drawing both
praise and criticism. While it undeniably expedites case resolution, concerns
persist regarding its constitutionality. The core debate revolves around its
potential to compromise fundamental legal principles and procedural
fairness.
On one hand, critics argue that plea bargaining undermines constitutional
rights and procedural safeguards by allowing defendants to negotiate guilty
pleas for reduced sentences. They contend that this compromises the
integrity of the justice system and erodes public trust.
On the other hand, proponents assert that plea bargaining is a pragmatic
solution to the overwhelming caseloads burdening criminal courts. With
resources stretched thin and delays in justice delivery rampant, plea
bargaining offers a means to efficiently resolve cases and alleviate court
congestion.
Ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of plea bargaining depends on one's
perspective regarding the primary objectives of the criminal justice system.
If swift and cost-effective case resolution is prioritized, plea bargaining may
be seen as a necessary tool. However, if upholding constitutional principles
and ensuring procedural fairness are paramount, concerns about plea
bargaining's legitimacy persist.
As legal systems grapple with these complexities, striking a balance
between efficiency and justice remains an ongoing challenge.
