ABSTRACT
Plea Bargaining has been done in India, in the response of systematic delays, and long pendency of cases, and the rising population of undertrials. Rooted in Criminal Procedure Code and retained by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it represents a significant shift from India’s traditional adversarial framework. While the mechanism promises expedited disposal of cases certainty in sentencing and reduced burdens of courts, it simultaneously raises deep concerns in fairness, voluntariness and potential coercion of economical vulnerable accused. Few judicial pronouncements such as, State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005) 13 S.C.C. 477 (Gujrat High Court)showed plea bargaining as a necessity to reduce long criminal procedures in India on the other side case like, Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1929, the Supreme Court did not accept the concept of plea bargaining as they belief that it was a form of formal inducement.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Criminal Justice system has been long stagnant with enormous delays, staggering pendency and procedural complexities that hinder expeditious justice. As a response to persistent under trial population, prolonged incarceration, and resource constraints India introduced plea bargaining through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005. Unlike adversarial trials, plea bargaining encourages negotiated settlements between the accused and the prosecution supervised by the court, in return for certain concessions promised by the prosecutor usually to drop or to reduce to a more lenient punishment. India’s model diverges significantly from that of the United States, adopting a restricted and carefully regulated framework in order to protect constitutional safeguards. The debate still continues as to whether plea bargaining promises swifter justice or erodes the legal proceedings.
KEYWORDS
Plea Bargaining, CrPC, BNSS 2023, Judicial Efficiency, Undertrial, Coercion.
Statutory framework: CrPC and BNSS
Plea bargaining started its route to India by the Criminal Procedure Code, in Sections 265A to 265L of Chapter XXIA. The Law commission in its 154th Report recommended the introduction of plea bargaining as an experimental measure to address high pendency of criminal cases. Subsequently, the Malimath Committee as well made the viewpoint acknowledging its effectiveness in the United States. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, permitted plea bargaining for offences meeting specific criteria, carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, offences that do not affect the socio-economic state of the country and they do not target women and children under the age of 14.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 also retains and allows the process of plea bargaining as a mode for the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offence so as to receive reduced sentences. The BNSS places the provisions of plea bargaining in Chapter XXIII (Sections 289-300). BNSS provides more structured provisions such as stronger judicial checks, wherein under section 290 has been made time bound and the applications needs to be made within 30 days of the framing of the charge.
The promise of plea bargaining: Efficiency and Certainty
Plea Bargaining seeks to address India’s massive judicial backlog. Scholars and policy researchers notes that traditional criminal procedures often take years, burdening courts for prolonged under trial detention. By enabling negotiated settlement, plea bargaining conserves judicial resources and allows courts to prioritize more serious and complex issues.
Moreover, process of plea bargaining benefits the accused by providing certainty in sentences, to reduce litigation costs and avoid prolonged incarceration. Studies show that plea bargaining can reduce the time spend by under trials in custody and speed up victim compensation thereby promoting restorative justice in less severe offences. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005) 13 S.C.C. 477 (Gujrat High Court) the Court observed that a criminal trial in India is a long procedure, and the need for alternative resolution are a necessity like plea bargaining to manage overwhelming backlog cases.
The Judicial Concerns in Plea Bargaining
Though plea bargaining promises several pros but still it raises critical concerns relating to fairness. Courts and scholars caution that socio-economically vulnerable accused may plead guilty simply to escape prolonged pre trial detention even when innocent. The unequal power distribution which lies between the prosecution and poorly represented defendants maximises the possibility of coercion. The judiciary has repeatedly asked for strict scrutiny. In the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1929, the Supreme Court did not accept the concept of plea bargaining as they believed that it was a form of formal inducement. The Court stated that such a system benefits the accused but compromises the interests of the society. The court was reluctant to allow plea bargaining wherein justice could be seen “purchased” through a bargain.
Victim’s Rights and Public Policy
Victim’s participation is central to plea bargaining under the Indian law. While the procedure mandates victims be consulted during satisfactory disposition of cases, critics argue that victims may feel marginalized or pressured to accept reduced punishment for the offender. Restorative justice is meaningful only when the victim’s voices are fully incorporated.
Moreover, upon several judicial pronouncements, the Indian courts stated that plea bargaining is often a threat to public policy and public interests. In the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. the State of Gujrat (1980) 3 SCC 120, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved the practice of plea bargaining and stated that, it was contrary to public policy and an abuse to court’s process. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika AIR 2000 SC 164, the Apex Court again condemned the process and declared it unconstitutional and illegal.
Procedural and Practical Challenges
Plea Bargaining in India often face procedural and practical challenges often arising out of judicial skepticism, a lack of awareness among stakeholders and the statutory requirement of the process itself. Procedurally courts grapple with the stringent requirement to ensure that an accused’s plea is entirely voluntary and not a result of duress and coercion. The system suffers from a lack of general education and training of plea bargaining among key stakeholders, including police, public prosecutors and legal aid advocates. This systematic problem of plea bargaining is often overlooked even in the most suitable cases.
Efficiency and Justice: The Dilemma
The arguments surrounding plea bargaining reflects the concerns between two foundational goals of criminal justice which are speed and fairness. While efficiency is important for the system to work, it cannot exceed the constitutional protections. A justice system cannot rely on forced guilty pleas to clear dockets.
Proponents argue that it is crucial for judicial efficiency, as it expedites resolution of cases reducing the overwhelming backlog in, courts and prevents accused persons, especially those from minor offences from enduring years of pre-trial detention as advocated in the 154th Report. However, critiques raise concerns that the pursuit of efficiency often compromises substantive justice. The tension arises in the precedents where in the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. the State of Gujrat (1980) 3 SCC 120, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved the practice of plea bargaining and stated that, it was contrary to public policy and an abuse to court’s process, but on the other hand. Though in the end, plea bargaining is for the less serious offences and focus on usually petty offences and helps to reduce the judicial burden.
CONCLUSION
Plea Bargaining in India, offers a practical experience to case backlog, but its effectiveness remains concerned by problems like coercion, unequal bargaining power and judicial hesitation. While CrPC and BNSS provides for structured safeguards, the mechanism can function only when voluntariness and victim participation are rigorously ensured. In the end , plea bargaining can aid efficiency but it also remains secondary in protecting constitutional rights and the principles of substantive justice.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY
