Plea Bargaining in India: Effectiveness and Limitations

The concept of plea bargaining is where an accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence or lesser charges, it is a well-established practice in the United States and other common law countries. In India, however, it was formally introduced only in 2005 through Chapter XXIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), after the recommendations of the Law Commission of India (154th Report) and the Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms (2003).

The objective behind adopting plea bargaining was to reduce pendency of cases, ensure speedy disposal of trials, and provide some relief to overburdened courts and prisons. Yet, almost two decades since its introduction, its effectiveness and limitations remain widely debated.

Legal Framework of Plea Bargaining in India

Applicability (Sections 265A-265L, CrPC)

• Applicable to offences:

  • Where punishment is less than 7 years of imprisonment.

  • Which are not against women or children below 14 years.

  • Which are not offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country (as notified by the government).

Procedure

1. Application by the Accused: The accused must voluntarily file an application for plea bargaining.

2. Examination by Court: The court examines the accused to ensure the application is voluntary and not coerced.

3. Mutually Satisfactory Disposition: The court facilitates negotiations between the accused, victim, and prosecutor to reach an agreement.

4. Judgment: The court awards a lesser sentence based on the settlement, while ensuring compensation to the victim.

Objectives of Plea Bargaining in India

• To reduce backlog of criminal cases.

• To promote restorative justice by involving victims in the process.

• To provide a quick resolution for minor offences, saving time and resources.

• To ensure certainty of punishment instead of long, uncertain trials.

Effectiveness of Plea Bargaining

1. Reduction in Case Pendency

   • Although not widely used, plea bargaining has contributed to faster disposal of minor criminal cases, thereby reducing some burden on trial courts.

2. Victim Compensation

   • The framework mandates a role for victims, ensuring that they receive compensation as part of the settlement process.

3. Certainty of Outcome for Accused

   • Accused persons benefit from lighter sentences and avoid the stigma of prolonged trials.

4. Judicial Efficiency

   • Plea bargaining enables courts to allocate more time to serious and complex cases.

Limitations and Challenges

1. Low Awareness and Utilization

   • Many lawyers, accused persons, and even prosecutors are unfamiliar with the process or hesitant to use it.

2. Cultural Resistance

   • Indian criminal jurisprudence has traditionally been adversarial. The idea of “negotiated justice” is often seen as conflicting with principles of fairness and morality.

3. Limited Scope

   • Exclusion of serious offences, socio-economic crimes, and cases involving women and children drastically reduces its applicability.

4. Possibility of Coercion

   • Poor or illiterate accused persons may be pressured into plea bargaining without fully understanding its implications.

5. Lack of Prosecutorial Role

   • Unlike the U.S., India does not have a strong prosecutorial system. Negotiations are often court-driven, limiting effectiveness.

6. Minimal Impact on Pendency

   • Given its limited use, plea bargaining has not significantly reduced India’s massive backlog of criminal cases.

7. Stigma of Guilt

   • Plea bargaining requires admission of guilt, which can have social consequences and may affect the accused’s future opportunities.

Judicial Perspective

• State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005): The Gujarat High Court observed that plea bargaining could not be applied in absence of statutory recognition, but once introduced, it should aim at delivering expeditious justice.

• Post-2005, courts have cautiously welcomed plea bargaining but emphasized that it must be voluntary, fair, and transparent, without undermining the rights of the accused.

Comparative Insights

• United States: Nearly 90-95% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining, making it the backbone of the justice system.

• India: Plea bargaining remains rarely used, mainly due to cultural, structural, and legal constraints.

Way Forward

1. Awareness Campaigns: Educating lawyers, accused persons, and victims about the process.

2. Strengthening Prosecutorial System: Giving prosecutors greater role in negotiations, as in other jurisdictions.

3. Expanding Scope: Allowing plea bargaining in more categories of offences, while ensuring safeguards for vulnerable victims.

4. Judicial Guidelines: Clearer procedural safeguards to prevent coercion and misuse.

5. Technology Use: Facilitating virtual plea bargaining hearings to save time and resources.

Conclusion

Plea bargaining in India was introduced with the promise of reducing case pendency and ensuring speedy justice, but its impact has been limited so far. While it offers benefits like victim compensation and certainty of punishment, its scope is narrow, and awareness is low.

For plea bargaining to become an effective tool in India’s criminal justice system, it requires greater acceptance, stronger prosecutorial support, and robust safeguards to protect against coercion. Otherwise, it risks remaining an underutilized provision in the statute books rather than a meaningful reform.