Author: Muskan Mishra, Sinhgad Law College, SPPU
Abstract
Plea bargaining was introduced into the Indian criminal justice system as a reform-oriented mechanism aimed at reducing judicial backlog and ensuring speedy disposal of criminal cases involving less serious offences. Inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, plea bargaining was designed to allow an accused person to voluntarily plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or other legally permissible concessions, under strict judicial supervision. Despite its potential to improve efficiency, plea bargaining has remained one of the most underused provisions in Indian criminal law. Even after nearly two decades of its introduction, its contribution to overall case disposal remains negligible. This article critically examines plea bargaining in India, identifies the legal and practical barriers to its effective use, corrects common misconceptions surrounding the provision, and argues that the failure lies not in the concept itself but in its implementation. The article concludes that plea bargaining, if revived and applied carefully within its statutory limits, could still play a meaningful role in easing the burden on India’s criminal justice system.
To the Point
Plea bargaining in India exists as a legally valid but practically dormant mechanism. While the law permits negotiated resolution of certain criminal cases, the provision is rarely invoked due to limited awareness, narrow applicability, procedural rigidity, and institutional hesitation. As a result, courts continue to spend significant time on minor offences that could otherwise be resolved quickly. The continued underutilization of plea bargaining reflects a missed opportunity to address pendency and delay, making it reasonable to question whether this provision has effectively become a dead letter of law.
Case Law
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (1999) 8 SCC 638, the Supreme Court categorically rejected the practice of plea bargaining and held that criminal justice cannot be administered on the basis of compromise or negotiated guilty pleas. The Court observed that mere acceptance of guilt by the accused cannot be treated as a valid ground for reducing the sentence, as sentencing must be based strictly on legal principles and not on promises of leniency. It was emphasized that a guilty plea induced by hope of a lighter punishment may be coercive and contrary to fair trial guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment reflects the **pre-2005 judicial approach**, where plea bargaining was viewed as against public policy, and it explains the cautious stance adopted by courts even after plea bargaining was later given statutory recognition through Chapter XXI-A of the CrPC.
Use of Legal Jargon
Plea bargaining refers to a statutory process under which an accused person voluntarily applies to plead guilty to an offence in exchange for legally recognized concessions, primarily relating to sentencing. In India, plea bargaining is governed exclusively by Chapter XXI-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, comprising Sections 265A to 265L. The process emphasizes voluntariness, judicial oversight, and the requirement of a mutually satisfactory disposition between the accused, the prosecution, and, where applicable, the victim. Unlike some foreign jurisdictions, Indian plea bargaining permits only sentence bargaining and does not recognize charge bargaining or fact bargaining.
The Proof
The legislative intent behind introducing plea bargaining was rooted in the alarming state of pendency in Indian criminal courts. India follows an adversarial criminal justice system where trials often involve multiple hearings, examination of numerous witnesses, and prolonged adjournments. While these safeguards are essential for protecting the rights of the accused, they also contribute significantly to delay, especially in cases involving less serious offences.
To address this issue, Parliament introduced plea bargaining through statutory amendment. However, the provision was drafted with caution, reflecting concerns about coercion, misuse, and potential violation of the right to fair trial. As a result, plea bargaining in India is subject to strict conditions. It applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years are expressly excluded. Additionally, plea bargaining is not available in cases involving offences committed against women or children below the age of fourteen, nor in offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country, as notified by the Central Government.
A crucial statutory requirement is that plea bargaining can be initiated only by the accused. Neither the prosecution nor the court can compel or suggest plea bargaining. The accused must file a voluntary application supported by an affidavit stating that the plea is made without coercion, with full understanding of the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed by law. The court is then required to examine the accused in camera to ensure the voluntariness of the application.
If the court is satisfied, it facilitates a meeting between the parties to explore the possibility of a mutually satisfactory disposition. If such a disposition is reached, the court proceeds to dispose of the case in accordance with statutory guidelines relating to sentencing. If no agreement is reached, the case proceeds as a regular trial, and any statements made during plea bargaining cannot be used against the accused.
Despite this carefully balanced framework, official data consistently shows that plea bargaining accounts for a minuscule proportion of criminal case disposals each year. This clearly demonstrates that the provision has failed to integrate into the regular functioning of criminal courts.
Abstract (Critical Analysis)
From a conceptual standpoint, plea bargaining represents a pragmatic approach to criminal justice. It acknowledges that the objective of criminal law is not merely punishment but also efficient resolution, deterrence, and restoration. In cases involving minor offences, prolonged trials often cause more harm than benefit. Accused persons face financial strain, loss of employment opportunities, and social stigma, while victims are denied timely closure. Plea bargaining seeks to minimize these harms while ensuring accountability.
However, in India, plea bargaining suffers from a lack of institutional confidence. Many accused persons fear that pleading guilty, even for minor offences, will permanently damage their reputation or future prospects. Defence lawyers often hesitate to recommend plea bargaining due to fear of professional criticism or allegations of inadequate representation. Prosecutors may be reluctant to engage in negotiated settlements due to concerns about appearing lenient or compromising the State’s authority. Judges, too, may be cautious, fearing that acceptance of plea bargaining could be perceived as undermining the seriousness of criminal law.
These institutional attitudes, combined with limited awareness and absence of structured incentives, have resulted in plea bargaining being treated as an exception rather than a legitimate procedural option.
Challenges in Practical Implementation
One of the most significant challenges is lack of awareness among accused persons, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. Many accused individuals are unaware that plea bargaining exists as a legal option. Legal aid systems and police authorities rarely inform accused persons about the availability of plea bargaining, even in eligible cases.
Another major challenge is the narrow scope of applicability. Since plea bargaining excludes a wide range of offences, including those involving women, children, and socio-economic offences, a large portion of criminal cases automatically fall outside its ambit. While these exclusions are justified to protect public interest, they substantially limit the provision’s practical utility.
Procedural complexity also acts as a deterrent. The requirement of affidavits, judicial examination, and formal meetings may appear intimidating to accused persons, particularly those unfamiliar with legal processes. Additionally, plea bargaining is most effective when initiated at an early stage, but in practice, applications are often filed late, reducing the incentive for negotiated resolution.
Importantly, Indian law permits only sentence bargaining. The absence of charge bargaining or fact bargaining reduces flexibility and makes plea bargaining less attractive compared to other jurisdictions. This limitation reflects legislative caution but also restricts the scope for meaningful negotiation.
Conclusion
Plea bargaining in India was introduced with the objective of making the criminal justice system more efficient and responsive. However, despite being legally sound and constitutionally valid, it has failed to achieve widespread acceptance. The reasons lie not in the concept itself but in its limited scope, procedural rigidity, lack of awareness, and institutional reluctance.
If implemented thoughtfully, plea bargaining has the potential to significantly reduce pendency in minor criminal cases, save judicial time, and provide faster relief to accused persons and victims alike. To revive this provision, there is a need for increased awareness among legal professionals, clearer procedural guidance, and a shift in institutional mindset that recognizes plea bargaining as a legitimate tool of justice rather than an exception.
Unless such steps are taken, plea bargaining will continue to remain a dead provision—one that could have saved the criminal justice system but was never fully embraced.
FAQS
What is plea bargaining in simple terms?
It is a legal process where an accused voluntarily pleads guilty to an offence in exchange for a lesser sentence or quicker disposal of the case.
Who can initiate plea bargaining in India?
Only the accused can initiate plea bargaining by filing a voluntary application before the court.
Are all criminal offences eligible for plea bargaining?
No. It applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and excludes serious offences, offences against women and children, and certain socio-economic offences.
Does plea bargaining violate the right to fair trial?
No. The law includes safeguards to ensure voluntariness and judicial supervision, making it constitutionally valid.
Why is plea bargaining rarely used in India?
Due to lack of awareness, narrow applicability, procedural complexity, and reluctance among legal stakeholders.
References
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Chapter XXI-A (Sections 265A–265L), available https://devgan.in/crpc/chapter_21a.php](https://devgan.in/crpc/chapter_21a.php)
2. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, Government of India, available at [https://legislative.gov.in](https://legislative.gov.in)
3. National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India Reports, available at [https://ncrb.gov.in](https://ncrb.gov.in)
4. INFLIBNET Centre, Plea Bargaining in India, available at [https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in](https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in)
5. Bar & Bench, Plea Bargaining in India: Practical Challenges, available at [https://www.barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com)
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (1999) 8 SCC 638, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460353/
