Plea Bargaining As Alternate Method For Dispute Resolution: A Comparative Study

Atreyee Chakraborti & Ambalika Dubey

INTRODUCTION

Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR, has proven to be an effective alternative to the traditional court's settlement method. While the rest of the courts must follow the standard and lengthy procedure, there are provisions for summary trial and speedy trial that help to dispose of a small number of cases in criminal courts quickly. And one of the ways to use ADR in criminal cases is through Plea Bargaining. In a criminal case, “plea bargaining is an agreement between the prosecution and the defence where the accused changes his plea from not guilty to guilty in return of an offer by prosecution or when the Judges informally make the accused aware that if he pleads guilty, his punishment can be lessened.”

Plea Bargaining has been derived from the Latin phrase “Nolo Contendere” which means “I do not wish to contend” i.e., a plea of “No contest”. “Justice delayed is Justice denied” is one of the primary concepts to be considered when Plea Bargaining is being spoken about.

Since courts are the primary providers of justice in the vast majority of cases, accessibility to the courts is a fundamental right accorded to people in democracies. Yet, litigation is not always necessary or effective in many areas of the law.2 Parties frequently have the choice of settling disputes on their own or by using alternate, easier, less expensive, quicker, and more effective procedures even though sometimes these objectives of plea bargaining are questionably followed.