Plea Bargaining: Meaning, Process & Types for UPSC Notes

Plea bargaining is a pre-trial legal process where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or for a reduced sentence in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It aids in reducing the burden of courts, ensures quicker justice and benefits both the prosecution and the accused. In India, where case pendency and undertrial populations are high, plea bargaining offers an efficient alternative to prolonged trials while maintaining fairness and judicial oversight. The plea bargaining was introduced in India through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2005 which brought about alterations in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973. The concept of Plea Bargaining has been incorporated under Chapter XXIA in the CrPC (Now BNSS). For UPSC exam aspirants, understanding what is a plea bargain, its legal basis and practical relevancy under plea bargaining in CrPC and BNSS is important.

Download Plea Bargaining PDF

Plea Bargain Definition

Plea bargaining is a legal procedure where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or one among several charges in exchange for concessions from the prosecution such as a reduced sentence or dismissal of other charges. 

• According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, plea bargaining helps to expedite court proceedings and ensures a conviction. Though critics argue it may compromise justice.
• Black’s Law Dictionary defines a plea bargain as a negotiated agreement between the prosecution and accused where the guilty plea leads to some prosecutorial concession and usually lighter sentence or withdrawal of charges.
• The Oxford Dictionary breaks down the term Plea Bargaining as a formal appeal or request made by the defendant to settle the case through negotiation. 
• In Santobello v. New York, U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger called plea bargaining as an important part of the justice system that leads to faster resolution of cases. 
• Scholars Robert E. Scott and William J. Stuntz describes Plea Bargain as a contractual agreement though it only becomes valid once approved by a judge.

Plea bargaining is a concept which emerged in the United States. The concept of Plea bargain has developed over time into a central element of the American criminal justice system. It involves pre-trial negotiations where the accused agrees to plead guilty in return for certain concessions from the prosecution particularly a reduced charge or lighter sentence. 

In the USA more than 75% of criminal cases are resolved through guilty pleas and most of which result from plea bargains. In federal courts, defendants who plead guilty often receive a 20% sentence reduction. The constitutionality of plea bargaining was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Brady v. United States. The Court affirmed that the process is consistent with constitutional principles. The Court has reiterated this position in several decisions and ruled plea bargaining as a lawful and efficient alternative to trial. 

The background is important to understand the plea bargain meaning especially when examining its later adoption and development in other jurisdictions like India such as plea bargaining under CrPC (Now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)

Three Types of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining can take different forms depending on what aspect of the case is negotiated between prosecution and accused. There are three types of Plea bargaining which aims to streamline criminal proceedings and balance justice and efficiency.

• Charge Bargaining

In case of Charge Bargaining the accused pleads guilty to a lesser or reduced charge in exchange for a lighter sentence. This is the most common type of plea bargaining in India.

How it works: The accused is originally charged with a serious offense carrying severe punishment. Through negotiation, the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge with lower punishment. The prosecution then drops or reduces the original charges. The Court convicts and sentences the accused on the basis of the new, lesser charge.

For example: An accused charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder which carries a life sentence, may, through plea bargaining, plead guilty to causing hurt by negligence and receive a much shorter prison term.

Charge bargaining provides greater relief to the accused as they face conviction and punishment for a lesser crime. Sentence bargaining still entails conviction for the original crime but with a reduced sentence.

• Fact Bargaining

In this form of Plea Bargaining, the prosecution agrees to accept the accused's version of the accused facts or withholds certain aggravating facts from the court in return for a guilty plea. This helps limit the gravity of the case presentation.

• Sentence Bargaining

Another form of Plea Bargaining is sentence bargaining in this the accused pleads guilty to the original charges filed by the prosecution. In return, the prosecution recommends a lesser sentence to the Court.

How it works: The prosecution and defense negotiate and agree on a recommendation for a lighter sentence for the accused in return for a guilty plea. Both sides then jointly move the Court with their recommendation. The Court has the discretion to accept or reject the recommended sentence. If accepted, the court convicts and sentences the accused according to the recommendation.

For example: An accused charged with robbery may plead guilty to all charges in return for the prosecution recommending five years imprisonment instead of the maximum ten years imprisonment. The Court may then sentence the accused to 5 years imprisonment as per the plea bargain.

Sentence bargaining is seen as a more truthful process since the accused pleads guilty to the actual charges. In charge bargaining, there are concerns about the manipulation of facts and distortion of criminal records.

Concept of Plea Bargaining in India

In the United States, an accused individual can choose among three types of plea bargaining - guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea of nolo contendere means the defendant neither admits nor disputes the charges but agrees to accept punishment as if guilty. The difference is that unlike a guilty plea, this type of plea cannot be used as evidence of liability in a later civil suit seeking damages.

A plea bargain is essentially a contractual arrangement between the prosecution and the accused regarding the resolution of a criminal charge. However, unlike ordinary contracts such an agreement becomes valid only after it receives judicial approval.

In India, the concept of plea bargaining has drawn influence from the doctrine of nolo contendere and was introduced into Indian law following recommendations by various Law Commissions. It has been adapted to suit the social and economic realities of the country. On the other hand, plea bargaining in the USA is broader whereas plea bargaining under CrPC (Now BNSS) in India is more structured and limited, incorporated through Sections 265A to 265L of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The Process of Plea Bargaining in India

Plea bargaining is a process where the accused and the prosecutor negotiate a deal for a guilty plea by the accused in exchange for concessions by the prosecutor, usually a lesser punishment. Here are the steps involved in plea bargaining under the Code of Criminal Procedure in India:

• Eligible case: The case must be for an offense with less than seven years imprisonment. Certain offenses are not eligible for plea bargaining.
• Application by accused: The accused applies to the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor seeking plea bargaining.
• Consideration by Prosecutor: The Prosecutor decides if the case is eligible and worthwhile for plea bargaining.
• Negotiation: The accused and prosecutor negotiate the terms of the plea bargain. This includes what charges the accused will plead guilty to and the recommended sentence or punishment.
• Filing in Court: The prosecution and accused jointly move the application for a plea bargain in the Court.
• Court Hearing: The Court verifies that the accused understands the process and is not coerced. The Court also considers the victim's objections, if any.
• Approval of Court: If satisfied, the Court approves the plea bargain. The Court records the guilty plea of the accused.
• Sentencing: The Court convicts and sentences the accused as per the terms of the plea bargain.
• Rejection of Plea: If the Court rejects the plea bargain application, the trial proceeds as usual. The accused can plead not guilty and defend themselves in Court.
• Implementing Sentence: The accused serves the punishment (imprisonment, fine, etc.) as ordered by the Court as per the plea bargain.

For plea bargaining in India, the accused must not only plead guilty but also accept the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution. The process involves negotiation of terms between the prosecution and defense, filing of an application in Court, approval by the Court after ensuring procedural safeguards, recording of a guilty plea and finally, sentencing and implementing the punishment as per the plea bargain.

Landmark Cases on Plea Bargaining in India

Before the implementation of plea bargaining in India through the Criminal Procedure Code, the judiciary largely opposed the practice and considered it inconsistent with the legal and moral structure of the Indian justice system. The following are some of the Landmark cases on Plea Bargaining in India -

• Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976): The Supreme Court disapproved of plea bargaining and observed that it undermines societal interests and is not suitable for the Indian legal system.
• Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat (1980): The Court held that plea bargaining goes against public policy and criticized the magistrate for accepting such a plea and declared the process illegitimate and unconstitutional.
• Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka (1983): The Court held that compelling an accused to plead guilty is unconstitutional. It ordered that if a guilty plea is coerced then the conviction must be set aside and retrial ordered.
• State of U.P. v. Chandrika (2000): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that plea bargaining was not legally allowed at the time and highlighted that criminal cases should be resolved on their merits in accordance with the law.

Comparison of Plea Bargaining in India and USA

The framework of plea bargaining differs between India and United States of America mainly due to variations in prosecutorial powers and judicial roles. In the U.S., the prosecutor holds significant authority and can directly negotiate with the accused. Once a plea agreement is reached, it is then presented to the court for approval. On the other hand, in India, the judicial officer plays a primary role in the plea bargaining process, overseeing and guiding the proceedings to ensure fairness and legality.

In the U.S., the process follows a business-like approach and requires prosecutors to disclose all relevant case details to the accused which promotes transparency and enables fair negotiations. Prosecutors may propose that the accused plead guilty to certain or all charges in exchange for reduced charges or a lighter sentence which is then recommended to the judge. Charge bargaining which is a common feature in the U.S., is not allowed under plea bargaining in India. Even if an Indian accused pleads guilty, they cannot negotiate for a lesser charge the judge must impose punishment strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.

In addition to this, the U.S. system allows sentence bargaining and permits the plea deal to include an agreed sentence length. It also allows plea bargaining for nearly all criminal offences making its application broad. In contrast, plea bargaining under CrPC Section 265A to 265L in India is restricted to specific offenses particularly those punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years and not affecting the socio-economic fabric of society.

Despite these differences, both systems emphasize that the accused’s consent is important for initiating the plea bargaining process. Both jurisdictions also permit withdrawal of a guilty plea before final judgment, protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial. Importantly, statements made during plea bargaining cannot be used against the accused in any future legal proceedings in either country and ensures the process remains voluntary and safeguarded.

Advantages of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining offers several practical benefits for the criminal justice system which makes it a valuable tool for managing case loads and ensuring timely justice. Its advantages extend to the courts, prosecution and accused. The following are the benefits of Plea Bargaining -

• Eases Court Congestion: It helps in decreasing the workload of courts and speeds up the resolution of cases.
• Possibility of Reduced Punishment: The accused may benefit from a lighter sentence than what could be imposed after a full trial.
• Saves Time and Expenses: It conserves time, effort and financial resources for both the prosecution and the defense.
• Improves Case Resolution Efficiency: Especially in overburdened judicial systems, plea bargaining in BNSS (Former CrPC) offers a quicker and more streamlined way to conclude criminal cases.

Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining

The concept of Plea bargaining was introduced in India to reduce case pendency and ensure quicker justice but the mechanism faces several limitations in practice. The challenges raise concerns about fairness, transparency and effectiveness of the system in delivering justice.

• Lack of Clarity in Law: Plea bargaining is voluntary and must be initiated by the accused but the law does not clearly define what happens when a plea bargain undermines the broader goals of justice.
• Police Influence: Given past instances of custodial abuse, there is concern that the police may exert undue pressure on the accused to enter into a plea deal and compromise the voluntary nature of the process.
• Victim Involvement and Corruption Risk: Victim participation aimed at ensuring fairness can sometimes lead to corruption and bias which may affect the neutrality of the plea bargaining procedure.
• Lack of Independent Oversight: The absence of a dedicated judicial authority to oversee plea deals raises questions about the fairness of outcomes. The practice of holding plea discussions in camera may also promote public distrust due to lack of transparency.
• Public Bias and Confidentiality Issues: If rejected plea deals are made public, it may lead to prejudice against the accused both in the court and in society, violating the principle of a fair trial.
• Not a Holistic Solution: Plea bargaining was introduced to address issues like prison overcrowding, delayed justice and high acquittal rates it fails to tackle the deeper systemic problems such as inefficient investigations, judicial delays and vested interests within the legal system.

Conclusion

Plea bargaining is an important practical tool in criminal justice to reduce trial delays, ease court congestion and offer quicker resolutions for minor offences. It brings efficiency and benefits both accused and prosecution and must be applied cautiously to safeguard fairness, transparency and justice. In the Indian context, with its limited scope under CrPC and BNSS plea bargaining represents a step toward judicial reform but not a substitute for comprehensive systemic improvements.