Comparative Analysis Of Plea-Bargaining In India And USA

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:51:22.580Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:09:45.002Z

COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS

OF PLEA-BARGAINING IN INDIA AND USA

Asst Prof. Renu Beniwal, Lords University Rajasthan

ABSTRACT

The concept of plea bargaining has gained a lot of importance in recent times. Its extent and functioning are different in different countries. For this purpose, we have taken up the task to compare the provision of plea bargaining in India and USA. Whether plea bargaining is more effective than being a disadvantage is a point of debate. It may be so because it directly pertains to the very basis of the trial process which is to uncover reality and give justice. There is a need for a rapid framework for granting justice and therefore the researcher aims at determining whether this concept has relevance or not. The paper will do so by comparing its merits and demerits in our judicial system. The researcher will also suggest changes needed in this concept of dispute resolution. Keywords: Plea Bargaining, Judicial system, Criminal proceedings, Trial, Guilty

INTRODUCTION

Over time many laws are introduced and many amendments are made, laws like CPC and Criminal Law are common law that are practiced all over the world, crimes are committed in every country and without any the proper law for them one can’t be punished for those crimes and that will eventually increase the crime rate and criminal which is unjust for the citizens, so criminal law laid down the proper procedure to punish the criminal for its unjust act. The procedure laid down by the criminal law helps the police to investigate the crime and helps them to catch the criminal with proper legal guidelines and it also helps the courts and judiciary to punish the criminal through proper trials. Criminal law consists of detailed procedures that are to be adopted for a particular purpose.

It usually starts with the procedure to aid the police to arrest the offender and also consists of the procedure to be employed in Courts while hearing and deciding cases. The procedures also evolve with the advancement of time. This also results in new procedures for example plea bargaining which is a modern method of resolution of a dispute. Plea bargaining means that the parties reach an agreeable settlement. The accused pleads guilty and in return, he is given a reduced punishment. (Black law dictionary). Plea bargaining as a concept varies from country to country. But the typical conception of this concept can be said to be of three types.

The offender pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for calling off a greater charge, or he pleads guilty to one of the many charges in exchange for calling off the other remaining charges, or he pleads guilty to the original charge in exchange for a lenient punishment. It is a rapid process and helps offenders to avoid strict punishments1. The functioning, extent, application and working differs from one country to another but this paper only focuses on two countries, India, and the USA. This paper compares this concept, its history, its current position, and its objective in these countries. The researcher undertakes a detailed comparative analysis of the concept as it exists in the said countries and also examines the merits and demerits of this concept.

In the end, the researcher suggests amendments needed and also makes recommendations for better implementation in the Indian legal system.

1 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary.

INDIA:

Origin of the concept: Plea Bargaining was introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 not very long ago. The amendment passed in the year 2005, in which chapter XXIA for plea bargaining was introduced and was made effective from the year 20062. Although plea bargaining was added in 2006, it was first deliberated in India’s Law Commission in 142nd Report where MP Thakkar3 presided. The report threw light upon the issues that were then faced regarding the disposal of trials, which led to an increased duration of under-trial prisoners in jail. Therefore, to prevent that, a proposal was made wherein a concession, or a reduced sentence would be given to the offenders who plead guilty on their own without any bargaining. It was further discussed that there will be two bases of classification, i. e.

, sentence bargaining and charge bargaining wherein the first one, the defendant if pleaded guilty will be offered a fixed conviction sentence by the prosecution whereas in the latter, if the defendant agrees to plead guilty, he will be convicted for some of the offences out of multiple offences committed. The functioning of plea bargaining in India was given in the 154th report4, in which the applicability of the provision will be for such crimes whose punishment of imprisonment is for

7 years or less than that, also, repeat offenders cannot protect themselves under this ground.

Before the finality of the 2005 amendment, a thorough consideration was made regarding the same in Malimath Committee Report, 20035. It was discussed that the accused shall be given certain concessions if he is willing to accept his crime and wants to correct his actions. Purpose of the study in present times: Plea bargaining is defined under section 265 A-L of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are certain exceptions wherein the accused cannot negotiate under plea bargaining. According to it, the provision can only be invoked in the cases where the imprisonment does not exceed the

2 CrPC, 1973, S.265A-L.

3 Report on Concessional Treatment for Offenders who on their own Initiative Choose to Plead Guilty Without Bargaining, 1991, http://shabdbooks.com/gallery/754-june2020.pdf.

4 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

5 Union Ministry of Home Affairs, p.178.

term of seven years and in addition to that, it also does not apply to such cases that directly or indirectly affect the socio-economic conditions of our country and in the cases of crime against women and children below the age of 14 years6. Also, the cases where the accused files the application unwillingly, or the accused who has also been convicted before for similar offences then the offender is not entitled to resort to the concept of plea bargaining7 in India. The application is filed by the accused to state his intentions for plea bargaining after which the court examines the sole party in an in-camera hearing and following that the punishment is reduced then the punishment that would be originally given.

Therefore, it can be said that plea bargaining gives a head start to the case as it prevents the whole procedure of proving the accused guilty of the charges and saves up precious time for the court. During the court proceedings, the victim is not necessarily required to be present at the court, but the accused is obligated to be present at the court at the period his sentencing is pronounced. As previously stated in the Law Commission Reports, the main aim of this concept to be introduced in the Legislature is to accelerate the court proceedings, at the same time reduce the burden of pile load of cases on the court and also, it prevents overcrowding of prisoners in jails8. Opinion of the Judiciary: The concept of plea bargaining was frowned upon by the Supreme Court of India due to its eminent nature and its interference with natural justice9.

Years before the concept of plea bargaining was introduced, in a landmark case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, 197610, the accused was involved in the adulteration of food. The accused reached out to the judge to plead guilty to receive leniency in his punishment. The court found it against the moral grounds of justice and any such compromise is questionable in the eyes of law. In a similar case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika11, the court upheld the previous judgement and the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court which

6 Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XXIA, Section 265A.

7 Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XXIA, Section 265B.

8 T. Aggarwal and S. Rewari, The Introduction of Plea Bargaining in India “Wanna Make a Deal?

9 State of Uttar Pradesh v Chandrika, 2000 AIR SC 164.

10 1976 AIR SC 1929.

11 State of Uttar Pradesh v Chandrika, 2000 AIR SC 164.

sanctioned plea bargaining. The court emphasized Article 2112 of the Indian Constitution and how the concept of plea bargaining contradicts the essence of the article. However, in another case, State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor13, it was observed that the method of plea bargaining can be seen as a cost-effective method for disposing of cases. Therefore, Gujarat High Court held that it results in speedy trials and less cost is incurred in this method. However, after the amendment the first case that allowed plea bargaining was observed in the case of “Vijay Moses Das v. CBI”, where the court accepted plea bargaining; herein forward, the concept was extensively accepted within the Judicial System of our country.

USA: Origin of concept: Many people in America believe that the concept of plea bargaining is a natural and essential element of their justice system from a very long time. Justice Charles Clark stated - “Plea bargains have accompanied the whole history of this nation’s criminal justice system”14. But his opinion is not established in actuality. Their justice system has condemned this concept for a very long. This concept gained approval late in the 19th century. The influence of media, people in politics and the population expanded by the 20th century which resulted in the need for a speedy justice system, and it also helped in the development of this concept15. Plea bargaining was applauded after the 1920s and became so popular that it started to lead. We find no reference to this concept in USA's 6th amendment, but the judicial system has restored its legality.

The working of plea bargaining was widened, the outcome of which is the current system of plea bargaining in the USA. Plea bargaining is allowed for reduced punishment in all kinds of offences. Because of USA, plea bargaining is widely recognized in criminal jurisprudence. Purpose of the study in present times: After a crime is committed, the person accused is arrested and presented in front of the court

12 Constitution of India, Article 21

13 State of Gujarat v Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005) Cr.L.J. 2957.

14 Bryan v United States, 492 F.2d 775, 780 (5th Cir. 1974).

15 Albert Alschuler, Plea Bargaining and its History, University of Chicago Law School, 79 Colombia Law Review 1, 1979. and he is told about all the rights he has and the wrongful acts he committed and is guilty of. After that, the other party or the prosecutor files charges in the court against him and he is presented in front of the court and judges and then can make a plea before the court. Nolo contendere indicates that the defendant is not going to challenge his conviction. No matter how severe the offence, the accused is allowed to enter in a plea deal and may even apply for plea bargaining after the case has already begun. He has the right to rescind his appeal for legitimate reasons. However, the accused is not entitled to receive a plea bargain, and the decision to accept or reject such offers rests with the prosecution.

Even the judge has the option to accept the plea of the bargain; he or she is not required to do so even if the parties have come to an agreement. Whether the accused took a plea voluntarily and fully understood its implications is mostly decided by the judge. In addition, the Federal Procedure Code requires the courts to pose a number of inquiries in order to establish justice and equity. However, in terms of procedure, it is rather simple, requiring only a statement of the desired agreement to be entered into the court's records for a successful application of the provision of plea bargaining. The provision of plea bargaining in the USA is more famous and has a wider scope than in any other country. Plea bargaining covers 97% of federal cases and 94% of civil cases16.

The important judgement of plea bargaining is to have less harsh sentences, which ends up working in favour of the victims and courts as the accused person tells the truth and admits his wrongful act in front of the court. In the current judicial system of the USA, plea bargaining has become a necessary stature. Opinion of the Judiciary: A larger portion of cases in America is decided through the provision of plea bargaining. A landmark case Brady v United States17 which discussed the problems and the validity of plea bargaining. The judgement of this case stated that plea bargaining is a valid and lawful provision, but also some misuse of this provision can happen as in some situations where an innocent accused can plead guilty with the intent to receive less punishment and years of imprisonment. In another case of Santobello v.

New York18, it was stated that there are many 16 “Stronger Hand for Judges in the ‘Bazaar’ of Plea Deals”, Erica Goode, NY TIMES, 22-03-12, last accessed at http://www. nytimes. com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals. html (on September 17th, 2017).

17 Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970).

18 Santobello v New York, 404 U.S. 257.

other ways given to the parties of a case where the provision of plea bargaining is not possible or delayed. In the USA the provision of plea bargaining is an important mechanism of their criminal system and procedure, most of the cases are dealt with under this provision only. There is no doubt that it is a crucial element of their Judicial system. Advantages: The main aim and objective of plea bargaining are to have a more efficient judicial system. The countries in favour of having plea bargaining in their legal system believe in the disposal of cases rather than having long trials which take years. When having plea bargaining as an option, the parties can make a settlement outside the court and without long trials.

If the parties agree to resolve it outside the court and the evidence is presented in front of the judge and the offender confesses and appeals to have a minimum punishment. Both parties have the advantage of not presenting their argument in front of the judge and can bargain without having an argument or attacking each other with words. The advantages of plea bargaining go both ways it helps the courts and judges to reduce the pending cases and to provide justice to the victims. As we all are aware of the high case pendency in Indian courts causes a lot of trouble and inconvenience to the victims who are seeking justice. Getting justice on time and giving justice is not an easy prosses in India we all know it can take years. But this is not the case in the USA, it's the other way around.

Having plea bargaining in a criminal legal system could be a great advantage for a country and for the accused who regret and have remorse for his acts and for the victim as it helps them to avail justice within a short period of time. The advantage of this provision should only be given to criminals who are ready to change and not commit any crime in future, not to those criminals who are not ready to change their ways of living and don’t regret their past illegal acts and who have a tendency to commit crime again and again. Having the same kind of law in different countries doesn’t mean that the administration of that particular law will also be the same, the judicial administration of plea bargaining is very different in USA and India.

In the USA plea bargaining is valid for almost every kind of crime that is committed, they believe in giving them second chance and in forgiving and living their lives by reforming themselves to become a responsible citizen; whereas in India, it’s not the same the provision the plea bargaining has a limited scope which is only applicable on very few crimes, the accused who has committed any serious offence cannot take advantage of plea bargaining. Disadvantages: The main aim of the judicial system is to provide justice to the victims and to punish the criminal but at times due to plea bargaining, the accused person who committed serious nature of crimes gets away from severe punishment which he doesn’t deserve and many times the victims get falsely accused of crimes they didn’t commit and get punished.

In some cases, a proper trial with all arguments and proper presentation of evidence is needed to avail justice which doesn’t happen in plea bargaining and sometimes because of this the accused gets away with minimum punishment. People go to court to get justice and many time a judgement affect everybody in society, but they don’t get justice for which they went to court due to plea bargaining the trials are of rough nature in which they try to resolve the case and sometimes the judge ends up giving unfavorable judgement and this makes a wrong impression of courts and judicial system of a country. In the end, the provision of plea bargaining is used by the criminals only to get out of the crime they commit and in fear of severe punishment.

Knowing this drawback of this provision many countries like India have adopted this provision; India has not fully adopted it like America, and the practice of this provision is very different in both countries. The provision of plea bargaining in India is only given to the criminal who has not committed any serious crime. Its main disadvantage is that many times the co-accused testify against the other co-accused to get benefit from this provision. Unlike other countries, India is not willing to fully accept this provision to not allow serious offenders to take benefit of this provision. Suggestions: After discussing the various advantages and disadvantages of this provision of plea bargaining, it is seen that India still can adopt many more reforms and can implement them in its judicial system. The reform can be done in respect of the powers given to the courts and judges.

The judges have the discretionary power to reject or accept the sentence, which was earlier offered, under the law, judges are only to accept the proposed sentences. Another reform can be to keep a check on the powers of judges and their functioning which will limit the possibility of conceited. Sometimes it can be seen that judges can easily accept that offered sentence, but this practice is against the true nature of the legal system which is to provide justice and it can also lead them to give punishment to innocent people and to give freedom to the accused person who had done the wrongful acts. The suggestions made after analyzing every aspect of plea bargaining can only be of help to a limited extent, to the limit where plea bargaining is more advantageous in nature than detrimental in nature.

There is a large area of reforms in plea bargaining for India and can make many reforms in its administration framework, as the current framework of this provision in India is not fully functional and effective and doesn’t fulfil its main objective. Conclusion: The concept of plea bargaining varies from country to country. However, the basic essence does not change. The offender who pleads guilty and is regretful should be granted a reduction in their punishment. Also, the procedures of the judicial system are lengthy and tedious and have to be dealt with in order to have an efficient conduct of justice. On examining the demerits, it can be said that they are major and hence cannot be ignored. Every point raises issues on the validity of the concept. These issues need to be looked into so that they can be incorporated into the legal system.

The provision of plea-bargaining system in India is not implemented in a way that it is supposed to be, the aim of having this provision and its main objective is not fulfilled. The administration of plea bargaining in India needs many reforms and modifications to make it more efficient. Most importantly the orders passed in plea bargaining should be standard and rightful judgement should be given. In the end, the main aim of this provision which is the speedy resolution of cases should be done in a lawful manner that will help the courts and it’ll also decrease the pending cases in Indian courts.