Plea Bargaining As A Tool Of Criminal Justice Reform: A Comparative Examination Of India And International Legal Systems
- IJLLR Journal
- 3 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Pooja S, The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University
ABSTRACT
This paper provides an extensive analysis of plea bargaining as an emergent mechanism of negotiated criminal resolution. It surveys its conceptual underpinnings and historical antecedents, procedural contours and challenges, and the manner in which it operates in multiple legal families. Drawing on a broad comparative bibliography, the study follows plea bargaining’s lineage in India—from ancient Vedic practices of confession and atonement, through Islamic-era notions of Qisas and Diya, to suppression under colonial adversarial norms and its statutory inception in 2005.
The article interrogates legislative and reformist rationales, especially reports by the Law Commission of India and the Malimath Committee, which frame plea bargaining as a pragmatic response to case accumulation, overtaxed courts, long pre-trial detention, and the constitutional mandate for speedy justice. It analyses the legislative architecture within the Code of Criminal Procedure and, subsequently, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, weighing standards for protective measures, procedural safeguards, judicial supervision, victim participation, and sentencing choices. Simultaneously, the paper offers a cross-jurisdictional review of plea bargaining jurisprudence in the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia—jurisdictions exemplifying an adversarial, prosecutorial driven model (USA) and more restraining, judiciary-governed approaches (European systems). From this comparative vantage, the research identifies recurring themes—efficiency, finality, cost avoidance, restorative engagement, and evidentiary pragmatism—alongside systemic hazards such as exploitation, bargaining asymmetries, and opacity.
The article critiques responses by Indian courts and weighs arguments for and against plea bargaining in light of its consequences for victims, prosecutorial responsibility, and broader normative aims in criminal law. It contends that, while plea bargaining cannot supplant full trials universally, a well-regulated, victim-conscious, court-reviewed scheme under clear guidelines can be a necessary instrument for modernising criminal justice in India.
Keywords: Plea Bargaining; Criminal Justice Reform; Comparative Criminal Procedure; Negotiated Justice; Law Commission of India; Malimath Committee; BNSS 2023; Victim Participation; Judicial Oversight; Restorative Justice.
