Abstract
This research paper critically explores the ethical, societal and constitutional ramifications of plea bargaining and its applicability in the Indian Legal system. While the practice of plea bargaining is viewed justified giving speedy solutions to court cases and trials, yet it goes against the ideas of justice on which our Indian Constitutional enshrines upon. The practice of plea bargaining is based on the idea of offering reduced sentences in exchange for guilty pleas, but this often coerces admission of guilty from innocent defendants and thus compromising the moral implications of right to fair trial. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of judicial and legal framework of plea bargaining in India, contrasting it with other countries like USA and Italy. This study argues that Plea bargaining reinforces injustice in the criminal courts, disproportionately hampering the marginalised, which is done by conducting a literature review and case law analysis. In conclusion, it holds that although this practice has made its own place in the Indian legal system through CrPC, it is found to be in stark contradiction with the principles of justice, right to fair trial, due processes on which our Indian Constitution is based on, thus violating its validity.
Keywords
Plea Bargaining in India, Judicial Discretion, Criminal Justice Inequality, Constitutional Validity, Ethical Implications
Introduction: The Paradox of Justice
“Law grinds the poor, the riches ride on them” ironically aptly applies to the present day Indian judicial and criminal system. To put it in simple words, this quote means that the majority of the accused who are hauled up in the courts by and large belong to the poor strata of our society. While the other strata, the riches, benefits from the poor’s struggles within the legal system. The public views the criminal justice system badly, and its current infrastructure makes it difficult to regulate the endemic crime scenario. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. Condition of West Bengal, the court upheld their judgement and emphasized on the need for sentencing stating “Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.” However, a loophole exists where the accused may by the means of negotiation plead guilty in exchange for a promise of a lesser sentence. The murky area here is that the accused may also get sentenced even though he is innocent, thereby defeating the basic notion of “letting 100 guilty free that than one innocent suffer” through the practice of Plea Bargaining.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this prevalent practice of plea bargaining undermines the idea of fair sentencing for the accused. Although it provides a way to manage excessive caseloads and settle cases quickly, it frequently conflicts with core justice values. The paper discusses how this system can create a number of moral conundrums and compromise the fairness of sentencing guidelines.
Research Methodology
This paper is of descriptive nature and the research is based on secondary sources for the analysis of plea bargaining, it’s constitutional validity, its extent in Indian Courts and comparative study with foreign countries. Secondary sources of information like newspapers, journals, and websites are used for the research.
Review of Literature
Understanding Plea Bargaining: Concept and Context
One can’t stress enough about the importance of going to trials, however, most prosecutions now get settled without a trial in hand. “the parties to these settlements trade various risks and entitlements: the defendant relinquishes the right to go to trial, while the prosecutor gives up the entitlement to seek the highest sentence or pursue the most serious charges possible.”These compromises usually entail lessening the seriousness of the accusations, dropping specific charges entirely, suggesting a reduced sentence, or consenting to other advantageous conditions. In the context of this concept, the word “plea” means request and “bargain” means negotiation. In its actual working there are many more promises made by the prosecution. In addition, the accused may consent to testify against accomplices, return stolen property appropriately, or disclose information regarding this or any previous offence. Prosecutor may also agree for the accused to be tried in the juvenile court or even to allow the defendant to serve in the military instead of being behind the bars. However, it is not solely up to the Prosecutor in India to determine the sentence of the accused. The prosecutor may only assist in the decision. The negotiation between the prosecutor and the courts thus cannot be implemented unless it is brought on record by the Judges. There exists no one centric rule that in order for a plea bargain to take place a certain offence needs to be committed and a certain sentence to be awarded. “The question of Plea Bargaining’s legitimacy and constitutionality was then settled in State Of Gujarat vs Natwar Harchandji Thakor in 2005, the court recognized the value of plea bargaining and that each “Plea of guilt”, which is considered to be part of the process of a criminal trial, should not be assessed factually but rather evaluated on case to case basis. It is a legal issue that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.”
Legal Framework: The Mechanics of Plea Bargaining in India
Getting into the legal framework of this, we see that this concept is contained in Chapter XXI-A of the CrPC under sections 265A-265L in the Code of Criminal Law(Amendment) Act, 2005. Although some limitations exist where this concept cannot be used such as offences against women (like stalking or rape), offences against children under 14 years, offences that affect the socio-economic condition of a county (like food adulteration and money laundering), offences which are punishable with death, imprisonment of life, or a term exceeding 7 years of imprisonment or in situations where the court determines that an individual has been found guilty of the same offence before or that the accused submitted the application without their consent, it is permitted to move forward in compliance with the law from the point at which the application was submitted.
Benefits and Pitfalls: Assessing the Pros and Cons
Benefits:
Within the criminal court system, plea bargaining provides the prosecution and defence with a number of benefits. Prosecutors find that plea bargaining resolves cases quickly, which helps them manage their heavy caseload. They can avoid the uncertainty and expenses of litigation while yet securing convictions and ensuring accountability for criminal behaviour. Plea agreements can also encourage prisoners to assist the legal system by offering crucial information in return for leniency, which can aid in the prosecution of other offenders and possibly stop further crimes. For defendants, in order to mitigate the potential repercussions of a conviction, plea bargaining gives the chance to receive reduced charges. Plea bargaining can also provide victims and offenders with a feeling of closure by settling cases through negotiation as opposed to litigation, which enhances efficiency.
Pitfalls:
There’s a flip side to this coin; it comes with its own set of limitations. The loss of the right to a fair trial is one of the primary disadvantages. By entering a plea of guilty to a reduced charge, an accused person essentially forfeits their right to a courtroom hearing and the chance for a fair and impartial trial. If the accused is innocent and feels under pressure to enter a guilty plea in order to avoid the possibility of receiving a worse sentence in court, this violation of due process is worrisome. Plea bargaining also gives prosecutors an incentive to overcharge defendants. Prosecutors might be inclined to file more serious accusations at first in the hopes of negotiating a plea deal for a less serious offence, knowing that the accused might be open to accepting a plea deal. By admitting guilt for a reduced charge, the accused can escape prosecution and avoid taking full responsibility for their acts. In some situations, this forbearance might not be warranted, which could compromise the concepts of justice and equity. Furthermore, victims may not find closure because it may not completely fulfil their need to see the guilty held accountable through a rigorous legal procedure. Lastly, Plea bargaining defendants may be sentenced to terms that undervalue the seriousness of their crimes or the harm done to the victims; this could give the impression that they are being treated more leniently. The public’s trust in the court is weakened by this, which also makes people doubt the validity of plea bargaining agreements.
Moral and Ethical Considerations: A Critical Analysis
Confession is considered the queen of proof as a confession by an accused serves as a compelling evidence. Sometimes it may also carry more weight than any other form of compelling evidence. “Back in the middle of 13th century to the middle of 18th century, ‘judicial torture’ was considered the heart of criminal procedure. Torture, as the medieval European lawyers understood it had nothing to do with official misconduct or with criminal sanctions. Rather, the application of torture was a routine and judicially supervised feature of European criminal procedure. Under certain circumstances the law permitted the criminal courts to employ physical coercion against suspected criminals in order to induce them to confess.” On drawing parallels to “the law of torture” and “ plea bargaining” we see that both of these substituted procedural systems and arose in response to avert trials. Likewise, Even though modern methods are less obviously cruel, coercion is nevertheless widely used. Plea bargaining becomes coercive due to this penalty difference, similar to past methods of torture.For compliance to be induced, both systems rely on taking advantage of people’s fear of negative consequences. The fear of more damage or punishment for the accused in the event that they refuse to comply serves as leverage in the law of torture. Like in plea bargaining, defendants who accept a plea agreement risk a harsher punishment if they reject it and are subsequently found guilty at trial. Instead, they are offered fewer charges or shorter sentences in exchange for admitting guilt. All of this prima facie leaves us with one conclusion of them not being very different from each other.
Constitutional and Judicial Perspectives-Constitutional Validity
From the day of its proposal there have been ample doubts about its constitutional validity. Detractors have been seen contending that the Indian Constitution’s Article 20(3), which forbids self-incrimination, is violated by plea deals. This constitutional clause protects people from being forced to testify against themselves, yet plea deals may put pressure on defendants to admit guilt, thus violating this basic right. It was in the case of Kasambhai Abdul Rehman Bhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat where it was argued that the existence of this practice was a violation of public policy as the result from the convictions were solely based on guilty pleas reached through plea negotiations. It was also viewed to be violative of the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution as the practice was deemed to pressurise defendants to enter guilty pleas with promise of leniency to their sentence. While a defendant’s decision to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit may represent a “rational,” if cynical, cost benefit analysis of his situation, in fact there is some evidence that the pressure of the situation may cause an innocent defendant to make a less than rational appraisal of his chances for acquittal and thus decide to plead guilty when he not only is actually innocent but also could be proven so.
It was in the case of Bokyn v Albania (US) where it was held that plea bargaining involves waiver of three of their constitutional rights, firstly, the right to trial, secondly, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and lastly the privilege against self-incrimination. However, such provision isn’t applicable to India. The first right is an aspect of Right to Life and Liberty enshrined by Article 21, while the second is an integral part of natural justice and finally the third one is a limb of Article 20 of the Constitution. In India waiver of these rights just for inducing a lighter sentence for an accused might not be permissible under any situation.
The process of negotiation hits the very cord of the principle of rule of law which is a basic value of the Constitution of India. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides punishment and sentencing for every man who commits a crime. Plea agreements act as a “barter system” by which for a guilty plea made by the accused he may be “awarded” with a lighter sentence than the one which should’ve been originally awarded( which wouldn’t have violated the rule of law). The first question it raises is whether any man has a right to trade the legislative intentions and give concession in differing degrees to an individual about the offences for which he may be tried? And secondly, can equal treatment of law be denied just because a man wants to assert constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the process established by law. In State of UP vs Chandrika the Apex court was of the decision that Reduction of sentence should not be based on mere acceptance or admission of guilt. Additionally, the accused is unable to negotiate a lower sentence with the court in exchange for his guilty plea. Threats of heavier fines if the defendant decides to go to trial could be used by prosecutors to coerce or scare the defendant into accepting a plea bargain. The integrity of the entire legal system is jeopardised by this coercion, which calls into question the voluntariness of guilty pleas. The presumption of innocence is weakened by this deliberate manipulation of the accusations, and the precision and dependability of guilty convictions are jeopardised. Furthermore, the public’s trust in the criminal justice system and the fairness and integrity of punishment are both weakened by plea bargaining. Plea discussions are confidential and take place behind closed doors without public inspection, which raises questions about accountability and transparency. The term of sentence coming out of these bargains seem to undermine the prevailing laws that were made exactly for the same reason that was rewarding punishment in accordance to the intensity. This form of bargaining however undermines the very power.
A Comparative Study with Foreign Countries
A substantial number of criminal cases are resolved via plea bargaining in the United States. The constitutional validity of this doctrine was upheld in the case of Brady v United States. it was held here that although there exists possibility of the doctrine being abused, it yet provides a constitutional mechanism for the accused to get a lighter sentence in exchange of admission of guilt. Due to the high conviction rate in the USA, plea bargaining has proved to be the only effective alternative technique of resolving criminal trials. Here the. Accused stands to gain more from choosing his procedure, at his discretion, as it offers him less serious charges and a straightforward punishment. During these negotiations the only parties in attendance are the accused and the prosecutor, meaning the judge is in no way involved throughout the negotiation process. Although, the term “non contender” was coined to describe an accused person who does not wish to contest, it was held in the case of Bordenkircher v Hayes that the accused to free to accept or reject any offer made by the prosecutor during the negotiation process.
In contrast, the application procedure for this doctrine in India doesn’t begin unless it has been ratified by the judge. The judge in India has the authority to approve or reject the plea. This differs significantly in Italy where this practice is known as “patteggiamento”. Unlike in India and USA, the accused here enters into negotiations and subsequent plea deals not on the allegations presented against him, but on the basis of the judgment of the courts. A favourable plea deal here might reduce the sentence by one third and include forgiveness of all legal fees, however it’s only rendered permissible when the punishment if either in the way of fine or of a terms of impressment of five years or less. By this means, this Civil law abiding nation promises of fostering prompt administration of justice. Because civil law, rather than common law, governs this nation and gives court decisions and proceedings comparatively less weight, patteggiamento has received little to no criticism.
Suggestions- Alternatives to Plea Bargaining
Plea bargaining, although justified in the eyes of law, could be substituted by the means of ‘Diversion Programs’ rerouting criminals of minor offences to community service, rehabilitation plans and educational initiatives which can enhance fairness in the judicial system of India. Screening processes and Summary trials may also speed up the process of trials, reducing delays in court proceedings. More than that, in order to repair harm caused by the offenders of crime, programs enhancing community involvement and accused-victim mediation leading to ‘Restorative justice’. The problems of overcrowding in prisons have been a major problem of India since ages due to delayed judgements. One way to mitigate the situations would be replace custodial sentences with non-custodial sentences such as fines, providing probation and community services. Since Plea Bargaining is a form of mediation or bargaining, one such way to replace this system would be through a neutral third-party mediation, which has gained quite popularity in the present times. These alternatives have the potential of creating an environment with a just, transparent legal system, which would address the victim’s rights as well as accused’s rights which would finally lead to mitigation of overcrowding problems and reducing burdens on courts.
Conclusion: Plea Bargaining’s Legacy on Justice and Ethics
Despite the fact that the case of State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakore recognised plea bargaining as fundamental reforms are inevitable, its moral and ethical ramifications cannot be disregarded. Furthermore, it maintains disparities in our judicial system. In the context of plea bargaining, defendants are faced with many decisions with consequences that follow them for the rest of their lives. Not only are these decisions important, but are made under extreme stress. Due to pretrial detention, trial penalty, higher costs of trial and inadequate representation, poor people are under more stress than the average defendant. The fact that our legal system is skewed is well known. And to that extent, that only the poor are expected to face harsher punishment as compared to the rich.It trivialises their suffering by reducing complex issues to simple transactions. Plea bargaining is seen as a betrayal of the core ideas of justice and equality in a country where these concepts are enshrined in the Constitution. However, plea bargaining obscures the way to actual justice and throws a shade over this beacon of light. Thus plea bargaining in one view is a disgrace to justice, a betrayal of trust, and a stain on our country’s conscience. Consequently, when the curtain drops in the maze-like labyrinth of our legal system, in the halls of power and justice, where murmurs of plea bargains reverberate like ominous spells, the accused—many times unprotected and desperate—are forced to give up their rights in return for a lighter punishment. Justice is traded and auctioned off behind closed doors, tarnishing the very foundation of our judicial system.
AUTHOR:
Teesta Itilekha
OP Jindal Global University