The idea of plea bargaining came from the United States and developed over time to become a well-known aspect of the country’s criminal justice system. Plea bargaining is the pre-trial negotiation in which the accused enters a guilty plea in exchange for a specific concession made by the prosecution. Usually, this entails talking to lessen the severity of the charge or sentence. In the United States, plea bargaining accounts for nearly all of the more than 75% of criminal cases that result in guilty pleas.

In federal courts, almost all defendants who enter a guilty plea are eligible for a 20 percent sentence reduction.
The US courts examined whether plea bargaining is constitutional in the landmark Brady v. United States ruling, which affirmed the constitutionality of plea bargaining. Subsequently, the court upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining in a number of subsequent rulings.

The Doctrine of Nolo Contendere is the source of the Indian concept of plea bargaining. India has been considering introducing and utilizing the doctrine within its criminal justice system. The Indian Criminal Justice System has not been able to deliver affordable and timely justice. Due to the overwhelming volume of enormous arrears that courts receive, trials take an abnormally long time and cost a great deal of money. As a result, the vast majority of cases come from the criminal court system, and conviction rates are extremely low.

Kinds of Plea Bargaining:

1. Charge Bargaining
   “Charge Bargaining” refers to a promise by the prosecutor to reduce or dismiss some of the charges brought against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. This can be further classified into multiple charge and unique charge. In multiple charges, some charges are dropped in return for a plea guilty to one of them. In a unique charge, a serious charge is dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to a less serious charge.
2. Fact Bargaining
   In fact bargaining, a prosecutor agrees not to contest an accused‘s version of the facts or agrees not to reveal aggravating factual circumstances to the court. There is an agreement for a selective presentation of facts in return for a plea of guilty.
3. Specific Fact Bargaining
   In this type of bargaining, there is an acceptance of sanction without pleading guilty which is known as the nolo contendere pleas. Another category of pleas in this category is known as the Alford pleas where there is acceptance of sanction but the defendant asserts innocence.
4. Sentence Bargaining
   “Sentence Bargaining” refers to a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a specific sentence or to refrain from making any sentence recommendation in exchange for a guilty plea. In cases of sentence bargaining, trial judges, ordinarily, opt to impose sentences not more severe than those recommended by prosecutors or else afford accused an opportunity to withdraw their guilty pleas.

The Law Commission’s recommendations led to the recent acceptance of the Nolo Contendere, or plea bargaining, doctrine by the Indian government. The Nolo Contendere doctrine has been applied in a way that takes into account the national social and economic landscape. A suitable modification has been included in the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code. Plea bargaining, a novel idea, will be beneficial in ending long-running criminal cases involving inmates awaiting trial.
The Criminal Procedure Code has added plea bargaining through Chapter XXI A. It outlines pre-trial talks between the prosecution and defense, wherein an accused party may enter a guilty plea in exchange for specific concessions made by the prosecution.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining

Advantages

Plea bargaining is a concept that encompasses both sides. It has the potential to be both a useful tool and a means of subverting the legal system. When we examine the theoretical side of plea bargaining, we believe that there will be less backlog in the courts and that justice can now be served effectively and promptly. The ability of undertrial prisoners to enter into plea agreements and have their sentences reduced is the most advantageous aspect of this system for those who must remain beyond the duration of their sentence. Plea bargaining was first introduced in India by the state of Karnataka.

The idea of plea bargaining will aid in reducing the court backlog, according to HK Patil, the law minister for Karnataka. This is one method of reducing the backlog, according to Arvind Narrain, an attorney with the Alternative Law Forum.
On the other hand, we believe that it will be advantageous to all of the accused parties. The ability to lessen their sentence, which if they do not act promptly, will result in them being detained longer due to legal action, is the main motivation behind the criminals’ plea bargaining behavior, if we analyze it.

Additionally, it’s generally accepted that a guilty plea lessens the accused’s punishment. In addition, the guilty party benefits from a shortened trial and lower expenses by entering into a plea agreement. It is also assumed that the accused gains responsibility, allowing him to enter the criminal justice system with a mindset that might provide him hope for rehabilitation in a shorter amount of time.

Plea bargaining could be a useful tool for clearing the court system’s backlog. However, the issue comes later when it becomes apparent that innocent people are being unfairly punished in this quick case resolution process. It might not lessen the risk that the offenders are forced to face, even though it might be a way to cut expenses and enable the prosecutor to use resources more wisely.

Disadvantages

As part of plea negotiations, the prosecutor may use unethical coercion to get the accused to confess to his crimes. If the accused admits his guilt and sways the verdict slightly in his favor, he may even get away with a lighter sentence. However, the majority of the time, the accused lack the necessary resources at their disposal to thoroughly investigate each and every case. Plea bargaining, according to its detractors, reduces human liberty and the goals of criminal sanctions by treating them like necessary but secondary economic commodities.

Additionally, it is anticipated that it would promote collusion and corruption, which would directly lead to a decline in the standard of justice. The court could decide to convict an innocent person by accepting a guilty plea or to lighten the sentence of a guilty person, undermining the legal system and undermining the goal of society. (Indian Law Commission, 142nd Report, 1991)

Another drawback is that it could be abused by the police, who could then ask offenders to accept their wrongdoing and lessen their punishment instead of subjecting them to their painful, powerful, and merciless blows.
For plea bargaining to be implemented successfully, judges must be endowed with a great deal of discretion, integrity, and protections. It would not be feasible to argue that the conviction based on the guilty plea was incorrect if the law allows for the voluntary entry of a plea of guilty and if a concessional treatment is granted in the context of the statutory authority of law in compliance with the established guidelines by judicial authority.

The Public Prosecutor should not hold the majority of power in plea bargaining; instead, the deciding authority should have more influence over the proceedings and be independent of the trial court for better plea bargaining implementation in India. The possibility of being forced to enter a guilty plea and of dishonest business practices can be significantly reduced if the final decision-maker serves as the only arbiter.

Consequently, not only will the victim’s needs be met, but there will also be a significant decrease in the system’s vulnerability to abuse by the police, the public prosecutor, and even the wealthy. In this regard, the plan put forth in the 142nd Report of the Law Commission of India is wise because it avoids mindlessly copying the plea-bargaining model used in the United States. (2006, 2 SCC (Cri) J–12)

It is indisputable that the plan formalizes the unspoken norm of being lenient toward those who enter guilty pleas rather than engaging in plea bargaining, and it ignores the reality that many do not have the means to obtain competent legal counsel. Since plea bargaining is essentially a contract between two parties, it is reasonable to assume that, provided it is carried out voluntarily, it will improve social welfare. However, the degree of its success will rely on the law, the order of the day, and the judges’ judgment in each individual case.

Conclusion:

Opponents of plea bargaining contend that it impedes the administration of justice, while supporters assert that it expedites court proceedings and ensures a conviction. Plea bargaining is used in the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States. Plea deals are not always simple to spot. Plea agreements that are formalized through negotiation are known as “explicit plea bargains.” However, because there is no assurance of leniency involved, some plea agreements are referred to as “implicit plea agreements.” Of the two, explicit agreements are the more significant.