The Significance of Plea Bargaining in India's Criminal Justice System
Prathamesh Ramesh Bhosale1*, Dr. Salil Shringarpure2
1 Research Scholar, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be
University), Pune, Maharashtra, India
advprathameshbhosale@
2 Professor, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), New Law
College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Keywords: Court Backlog; Criminal Justice System; Efficiency; Global
Comparison; Historical Perspective; India; Legal Proceedings; Plea Bargaining; Roles;
System
The judiciary plays a crucial role in establishing the state of justice in a democratic nation like India. The Indian Criminal Justice System has a reputation for being unable to deliver prompt, cost-effective justice. Trials take a very long time and cost a lot of money since courts are overloaded with huge arrears. Since it's common knowledge that justice postponed is justice denied, it's important to know how many individuals actually receive justice on schedule. It's correct to say "If there is one sector which has kept away from the reforms process it is the administration of justice". Thus, the Indian Courts have long been plagued by the issue of a backlog of cases. The government has implemented various firefighting measures, such as lok adalats, fast track courts, family courts, mobile panchayats, nyaya panchayats, and gramme nayalayas, to address the backlog of cases, expedite the resolution of cases, and ease the suffering of prisoners awaiting trial.Plea bargaining is one of these strategies. It is stated that the Indian Legislature developed the idea of plea bargaining, which originated in the West. By adding Sections 265 A–L to “the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”, and creating Chapter XXI–A through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, the legislature established the provisions of plea bargaining in 2005.
"A negotiated agreement between a
prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a
lesser offence or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by
the prosecutor, usually a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the
negotiated charges" is the definition of plea bargaining as given in
Black's Law dictionary. Plea bargaining, in the
broadest and most conventional sense, refers to pre-trial discussions between
the prosecution and the defendant, usually conducted by the council, wherein
the defendant consents to enter a guilty plea in exchange for a particular
concession made by the prosecution, as per the comprehensive Report of the Law
Commission of India (144th). Upholding the rule of law and maintaining public
order are two crucial roles of the state that are necessary for a nation to be
able to grow economically. India, a democratic and multicultural nation with a
diverse population and many ethnic minorities, needs a responsive criminal
justice system. From colonial India to the modern day, the administration of justice has
changed throughout time in response to shifting political landscapes and social
demands. The development of a judicial system was essential for maintaining Dharma
in ancient India, where purohitas often oversaw the administration of justice,
which resulted in elitist biases in that regard. Similar to this, Islamic
ideals affected Mughal justice, leading to unequal treatment depending on
religious ties. The legal system supported colonial interests under British
administration, maintaining inequities in access to justice. In India today,
getting justice is expensive and difficult, favoring those with power and
wealth. Laws that have shown partiality to those from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds have made disparities in the criminal justice system worse.
Notwithstanding historical obstacles, India has had judicial institutions since
antiquity, which reflects the dynamic character of the country's criminal justice
system. The objectives of criminal justice systems around the globe are to
maintain social order, deter crime, and punish offenders. The age-old practice
of plea bargaining is becoming more and more popular around the world as a way
to speed up court cases and guarantee prompt delivery of justice. Plea
bargaining is still in its infancy in India, yet it has been successfully implemented
in other nations.
Plea
bargaining has advantages including avoiding unjustified incarceration,
guaranteeing responsibility, and accelerating the administration of justice.
However, there are issues with fairness and due process, and its application
differs depending on the jurisdiction. However, plea bargaining addresses the
substantial backlog of court cases, promotes community acceptance of prompt
justice delivery, and gives hope to both accused parties and victims. Although
the notion of plea bargaining was not originally included in Indian legal
codes, it has since been introduced into the legal structure of the nation,
following a worldwide trend towards the adoption of this type of justice. Plea
bargaining seems to be a workable way to speed up court cases and advance
justice in the criminal justice system as countries work to overcome structural
challenges and guarantee efficient administration of justice. It is impossible
to exaggerate the importance of plea bargaining in India's criminal justice
system. India is a country facing many social and economic issues, and its
legal system has to change to accommodate its varied people. Plea bargaining is
a viable option for resolving the backlog of court cases, guaranteeing prompt
justice delivery, and accelerating legal procedures. The historical viewpoint
shows how religious, cultural, and colonial influences have shaped the
development of judicial administration in India throughout time. Even while
plea bargaining is a relatively new idea in India, its acceptance there is
indicative of a worldwide trend towards updating criminal justice systems to
address current issues.
Plea
bargaining's worldwide relevance highlights how successful it is in
accelerating court cases and maintaining justice in the criminal justice
system. For the purpose of preventing abuses and preserving the rights of all
parties concerned, it is necessary to carefully examine procedural protections
and due process while implementing it. Adopting plea bargaining provides a
workable way to lessen the load on courts, advance justice, and guarantee
prompt delivery of justice as India continues on its road towards social and
economic growth. India can make great strides towards improving its criminal
justice system and maintaining the rule of law for all of its residents by
adopting this idea and putting it into its legislative structure.
The field of criminal justice administration is
growing globally. A criminal justice system's main goal is to promote social
peace and stability while also providing a way for people to file a claim for
damages when their rights are violated. As a result, the system considers as
illegal a variety of actions that infringe upon or violate the rights of people
in a civilised society. However, because of the power imbalance that exists
between the government and the defendant, it is essential to set up a process
that guarantees justice and protects the defendant's rights at every stage. The
procedure is proceeding slowly because efforts are being made to make sure the
system is fair enough to give the defendant confidence. Consequently, there are a lot
of unsolved cases in India's criminal courts and a lot of prisoners waiting for
trial in Indian prisons who are trying to resolve a criminal case via an ADR
procedure. Plea negotiating is one method of resolving a criminal case without
having the defendant stand trial. This
happens when the prosecutor and the accused party, who are the parties
concerned, negotiate compromises. Under
these agreements, the parties swap different rights and risks: the prosecutor
forfeits the ability to seek the harshest sentence or bring the most serious
accusations possible, and the accused forfeits the right to a trial. The
agreements that followed show a predicted departure from what would have
happened if the identical cases had gone to trial. Plea bargaining results in
lighter sentences for defendants than for non-participating defendants. On the
other hand, those who want to have a trial are largely declared not guilty,
while those who confess guilt are immediately deemed guilty.
Plea bargains and contracts are comparable in that
they both include the necessary elements of a binding legal arrangement. It
cannot be enforced without judicial authority, though. To establish legal
responsibilities, a legally enforceable agreement must have the following
elements: proposal, approval, evaluation, legal status, and intent.
Proposal: In a plea agreement, the
prosecution makes suggestions to the defendant that include concessions like
lowered charges or shorter sentences in exchange for a guilty plea. If the
prosecution approves, the defendant may also provide substitute suggestions.
Approval: In order
for the plea agreement to be implemented, the accused must accept the offer.
Plea bargaining is pointless without acceptance, even if both sides make
counterproposals.
Assessment: Plea bargaining grants consideration by accepting the
accused's guilty plea, which relieves the prosecution of the duty of proving
the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, it reduces the
burden for practitioners and judges.
Legal status: The right of the accused to choose their plea, the
prosecution's ability to press charges, and the judge's discretion in
sentencing all guarantee the legitimacy of a plea agreement.
Goal to create legal obligations: Although the parties are free to change their
minds at any time, they do want the plea agreement to be legally enforceable.
Plea bargaining is a common procedure in many legal
systems, including India. It may be broadly classified into three types: Charge
Bargaining, Sentence Bargaining, and Fact Bargaining, depending on the form of
confession allowed by the prosecution. Even if the prosecution and the accused
negotiated these agreements, they are not legally binding unless a judge
approves them. Charge bargaining is when a defendant enters a guilty plea in
return for the dismissal of one or more charges against them. For example, a
defendant charged with assault, rape, and adultery may consent to admit assault
in return for the adultery charge being dropped. Phrase Contrarily, bargaining
entails the prosecution offering a guilty plea in return for a reduced or
favourable sentence recommendation. Reality Acknowledging certain truths in
return for a promise not to disclose other facts is known as bargaining. The
plea agreement is legally enforceable as soon as the court registers the
conviction and accepts the defendant's guilty or no contest plea. Nonetheless,
the court has the authority to reject the plea and impose a fresh sentence if
the offender doesn't carry out some of the responsibilities specified in the
plea agreement. Plea bargaining is a technique that the Indian legal system
actively encourages since it allows cases to be resolved more quickly and
lessens the workload of the judge. Plea
bargaining raises questions regarding justice, openness, and the possibility of
coercion or exploitation of defendants, even as it provides advantages like
reduced charges or penalties for defendants and effective case management for
prosecutors. As a result, while using plea bargaining techniques, it is crucial
to carefully weigh the rights of the accused against the purposes of justice.
The Law Commission of India
put out proposals to solve these issues after observing the growing backlog of
criminal cases and the protracted delays in their disposal. In 1991, the
Commission suggested, in its 142nd Report, that criminals who voluntarily enter
a guilty plea get favourable punishment, similar to what is seen in other
countries. This plan called for dropping some charges or lightening penalties
for guilty pleas. To formalise this approach, the Commission promoted statutory
revisions to “the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).”
Referencing data from the
US, where plea deals account for almost 75% of convictions, the Commission
emphasised the necessity of procedural changes to accelerate the administration
of justice. Consequently, the Commission stressed the necessity of modifying
the Cr.P.C. to include plea bargaining as a trial strategy for less serious
offences in its 154th Report, which was delivered to the UN in 1996. The
Malimath Committee's idea gained support, and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill
of 2003 suggested introducing plea bargaining into the criminal court system of
India. The bill was reworked and enacted as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in
2005, despite its original stalling. Sections 265A–265L of Chapter XXI-A on
"Plea Bargaining" were added to the Cr.P.C. by this legislation. The
implementation of these laws in 2006 brought about a notable transformation in
the Indian criminal justice system, with the objective of accelerating the
settlement of cases and reducing the workload for the judiciary. The legal
system in India has seen a significant transformation with the introduction of
plea bargaining. This has resulted in a well-organized approach to swiftly
resolve cases and minimise the backlog of unresolved problems.
Long-term delays in the
resolution of criminal cases are a critical problem facing the Indian legal
system, which has a substantial backlog of cases and is undermining public
confidence. In October 2001, there were an astounding 2.03 crore cases pending
in High Courts and District Courts throughout major states including Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, and other. In 1987, the Law Commission of India's
120th Report noted that one of the main reasons for delayed resolutions was the
lack of judges in the country—there are only around 10.5 judges per million populations,
which is far lower than the ratios in nations like Australia, the United
Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. Due to overcrowding in courts and a
lack of judicial staff, the situation of those awaiting trial is made worse by
the fact that there are over 500,000 offenders housed in facilities intended to
hold 256,000 criminals. State governments have heavy financial burdens; they
spend more than Rs. 55 per prisoner per day, or 361 crores annually. Rapid
trials and other alternatives might lessen this load and lower the number of
people being held awaiting trial. Plea bargaining seems as a viable means of
reducing backlogs and accelerating case outcomes. In exchange for a shorter
sentence, the accused agrees to a mutually advantageous arrangement that
lessens the workload for judges and prosecutors and speeds up courtroom
proceedings. The introduction of plea bargaining might greatly reduce backlogs
and boost the effectiveness of the legal system, resolving the urgent problem
of justice being delayed, which is the same as justice being denied.
The monarch or his minister presided over court
sessions in the ancient Indian legal system, which was based on the Vedas,
legal treaties, Vedic supplements, and Puranas and did not distinguish between
civil and criminal law. Justice was administered by the king and court
together, with a primary emphasis on retaliation and revenge as punishment. Conflicts
were frequently settled amicably in the post-Vedic era, much like in plea
bargaining today. Similar to the American practice of plea bargaining, this
historical practice sought to minimise backlog by settling cases outside of
trial under court supervision. Plea bargaining is not a new concept in India;
it was borrowed from old customs and shaped by American methods. Hindu
scriptures record situations that are similar to plea bargaining, which is
indicative of a long-standing custom of amicable resolutions. Acknowledging the
possibility of reducing the backlog of cases, plea bargaining was supported by
India's Law Commission in reports from the 142nd to the 177th, and the Malimath
Committee suggested putting it into practice. “The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act
of 2005”, which integrated plea bargaining into “the Criminal Procedure Code
1973” under Chapter XXI-A, was the result of this. Plea bargaining is a tactic
used to lessen the backlog of criminal cases in India, when the accused admits
guilt in return for lower penalty or the dropping of charges. Its historical
foundations and current law revisions emphasise how important it is to
guarantee justice in conflict resolution and streamline the criminal justice
system.
Plea
bargaining was first proposed as a strategy for the Indian criminal justice
system in the landmark 154th Law Commission Report. Plea bargaining is
considered to be an alternative strategy that Indian courts must use in order
to clear the significant backlog of criminal cases they are presently managing.
Subsequently, to address the increasing volume of criminal cases, the NDA
government established a panel headed by Justice V.S. Malimath, the former
Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court and the Karnataka High Court. The
Malimath Committee that India use a plea negotiation procedure. According to
the committee, it would expedite the conclusion of criminal cases and lessen
the burden on the courts. As stated in Chapter XXIA, Sections (265A-265L) of “the
Criminal Procedure Code, Amendment 2005”, plea bargaining came into effect on
July 5th, 2006.
·
Section 265-A: Section 265-A deals with the
option of plea negotiations for defendants accused of crimes for whom there is
no capital penalty, life in prison, or sentence of more than seven years in
jail. Section 265 A (2) of the Cr.P.C., 2005 authorizes the Central Government
to receive notification number. SO1042 (II) about the offences committed on
July 11, 2006. This has to do with figuring out how the wrongdoing impacts the
country's socioeconomic situation.
·
Section 265-B: This section deals with the
plea negotiating procedure, for which the accused may file an application. The
application must be submitted with a short explanation of the situation and an
affidavit that has been signed by the accused. The affidavit should indicate
that the accused has voluntarily decided to pursue plea negotiations after realizing
the severity and regularity of the possible penalty.
·
Section 265-C: A technique for reaching a
mutually agreed settlement that the court will accept is proposed in Section
265-C. After examining a police report, the court will communicate an
appropriate conclusion to the investigating officer, the public prosecutor, and
the parties involved in the case—the accused and the victim. The Court notifies
the victim and the accused about the case upon filing of a complaint.
·
Section 265-D: A section 265D-compliant
meeting resulted in the formulation of a positive resolution. It is necessary
for the Court to make an official announcement on this ruling. The consent of
the president of the Court and every other meeting participant is required if
no official document is created.
·
Section 265-E: Section 265E requires the
Court to rule on the issue in a well-reasoned manner, as follows: In accordance
with Section 265E, the victim may get compensation. The themes that the parties
will consider include the harshness of the sentence, probation for good
behaviour, and section 360 admonitions. When dealing with the accused,
"The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958" or any other relevant statute
may also be taken into account.
·
Section 265-F: In accordance with Section
265F, the Court's ruling must be announced in public and signed by the Court
President.
·
Section 265-G: Except in situations where
special authority is requested under Article 136 or via a petition for a
written order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the decision made
by the Court under Article 265G is final and cannot be contested in any court.
·
Section 265-H: A review of the Court's
authority over plea negotiations is done. A court has the power to carry out
its duties under Chapter XXI-A of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the criminal
proceedings and other things that fall within the purview of the court's
decision-making.
·
Section 265-I: In addition to other provisions
of this Code, Section 428 shall be used for balancing the length of the
accused's detention against the prison term imposed in this Chapter.
·
Section 265-J: The anti-clause says that the
chapter's provisions apply in spite of any conflicting clauses in the Code or
any other legislation, including chapter XXI-A. It is devoid of any substance
in this sense.
·
Section 265-K:
·
Statements of the Accused Are Not Included No matter
what facts or comments a defendant includes in their plea negotiating
application filed under section 265B, the facts or statements may not be used
for any other purpose than this Chapter.
·
Section 265-L: Section 265-L of the 2000 Act
on the Protection of Children (Juvenile Justice, 2000) states that the
provisions of this chapter do not apply to children or juveniles.
Plea
bargaining in ancient India has its roots in the Vedic era, which comes before
written history. In this age, the idea of Dharma, or law, served as a
fundamental guiding and moral foundation for the administration of justice. The
monarch was in charge of making sure that justice was carried out correctly,
with the main goal being the creation of a just and equal society. There were
communal settlements throughout the Rig-Vedic period, therefore rules of
behaviour had to be established. These rules, called Dharma, dictated proper
conduct and outlined what should be done if someone disobeyed them. As the head of state, the monarch was tasked with
enforcing the law, with Hindu jurists such as Manu, Kautilya, and Sukra. placing
special emphasis on the preventative and deterrent effects of punishment. During
this time, punishment had many uses, such as purification, correction,
deterrent, and prevention. It was required of offenders to own up to their
wrongdoings and atone for their transgressions. For the sake of
self-purification, confession and repentance were considered essential, and the
monarch was the only one who could forgive. There were provisions in the
ancient Indian judicial system for mitigating punishment by confession.
Confessional offenders were eligible for lower terms; those who withheld
information may face harsher punishments. A number of scriptures, such as the
Yajnavalika Samhita and the Apastambha Samhita, recognised repentance and
confession as practical ways to atone for sins. Ancient
Indian historical occurrences provide as more examples of the practice of
forbearance and reduced fines. Characters from the Ramayana, such as Sugreev,
freely acknowledged their wrongdoings and received light sentences,
highlighting the significance of confession and contrition in obtaining pardon.
In a same vein, leaders such as Vikramaditya faced consequences that matched
the seriousness of their transgressions and were made to answer for their acts.
In general, plea bargaining, in which criminals admitted their wrongdoing and
asked for pardon via penance and purification, might be seen as an early form
of contemporary procedures in ancient India. The Vedic period's focus on
confession, remorse, and leniency emphasises the significance of
self-purification in the administration of justice.The adversarial common
law system had a significant impact on India's criminal justice system under
British rule. Established in 1672, the East India Company's Court of Judicature
imposed sentences on violators, many of which included labour for the victim or
the owner of their property. 1860 saw the adoption of the Indian Penal Code,
which broke with earlier customs in order to standardise criminal laws. But the
British system never used plea bargaining or negotiation; instead, it preferred
to declare guilty parties guilty rather than settle disputes via money.The goal
of attempts to standardise criminal legislation was to eradicate the plea
bargaining methods that were common during the Mughal era. One such suggestion
was made by Lord Cornwallis in 1790, which forbade cooperation between the
benefactors of murder victims and the convicted. Mahatma Gandhi promoted decentralization
and the creation of the Panchayat raj institution as a means of resolving
disputes after independence. The 1973 Criminal Procedure Code included
provisions for guilty pleas in small matters and summary trials. Although laws
addressing compromise and compoundable offences permitted settlement without
full trials, plea bargaining was not officially used in these cases.
In
an effort to expedite trial timeframes and reduce the backlog of criminal
cases, India began looking into the idea of plea bargaining. Unlike the civil
legal system, the criminal justice system did not provide alternatives for
resolving disputes, which made backlogs and delays worse. In the adversarial
judicial system of modern India, the state renders decisions after competing
parties submit contrasting claims. Nevertheless, this method impedes the
settlement of conflicts by adding additional procedures and delays. Public
confidence in the court is weakened by the notable increase in outstanding
cases, which is linked to delays in judge vacancies and procedural
inefficiencies. Trials are often postponed for years after arrest due to
prolonged pretrial confinement, which exacerbates problems. The backlog of
criminal cases undermines public trust in the judicial system and obstructs
socioeconomic development. It is still difficult to get prompt, effective
justice since accused people sometimes spend years in jail or prison before
being tried. Therefore, backlogs and delays plague India's criminal justice
system, which has its roots in British colonial tactics. Plea bargaining
initiatives seek to speed up trials, but fundamental changes are required to
fix inefficiencies and rebuild public confidence in the legal system.
Global
crime is a problem that causes lengthy and expensive criminal prosecutions in
courts all around the world. Plea bargaining has emerged as a key answer in
many developed and developing nations' unique approaches to addressing these
difficulties. Plea bargaining was invented in the US and is still widely used
there to speed up court cases and reduce backlogs. In recent decades, plea
bargaining has also been accepted to varied degrees by other nations including
Australia, the United Kingdom, many European countries, and New Zealand.
Every
nation has a unique strategy based on the requirements of its society and legal
framework. For instance, India embraced plea bargaining more than ten years
ago, but its goals and strategies are not the same as those of other countries.
It is crucial to carry out a comparative examination across many jurisdictions,
such as the US, UK, Canada, European nations, Australia, and the International
Criminal Court, in order to comprehend the subtleties and variations in plea
bargaining techniques. Even after plea bargaining has been used in English and
American courts for over 300 years, official judicial acceptance of the
practice is still elusive. It was not even mentioned in the White Paper on
Criminal Justice in England and Wales, published on February 6, 1990. Plea bargaining
has been around for over a century in the US, although it wasn't officially
recognised until around 20 years ago. Many judicial systems across the globe,
even those more closely linked to the Anglo-American legal system, such those
in England, Canada, Australia, Yugoslavia, Poland, and France, have
progressively embraced plea bargaining. Even traditionally inquisitorial
nations such as Germany, Italy, and Poland today see plea bargaining as an
important component of their judicial systems. Governments all over the globe
have passed laws to guarantee the acceptance of guilty pleas; in the US,
federal procedures require compliance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in
order to preserve fairness in the adjudication process. Because there are
unclear standards and processes in India, charge negotiation is difficult and
results in uneven authority sharing between prosecutors and defendants. In
comparison, the US has a well-organized system that includes supervision
procedures to guard against abuse and exact requirements for charge
negotiating. Canada upholds procedural protections such as pre-trial
discussions and formalized norms to guarantee justice. India lacks uniform
sentencing guidelines, which may lead to inconsistent sentencing outcomes and
the possibility of forced plea agreements. On the other hand, the US uses
sentencing guidelines to guarantee proportionality according to the nature of
the offence and the background of the offender. Canada fosters consistency and
fairness via judicial discretion regulated by established rules, emphasizing
proportionality and justice in punishment. India lacks clear standards for
fact-finding, which leads to ambiguity and inconsistent results, especially
when it comes to admission of evidence. The US uses the Federal Rules of
Evidence to control what evidence may be admitted, and courts carefully
consider whether admissions were made voluntarily in order to avoid coercion.
Canada uses methodical procedures and established rules to guarantee procedural
fairness and consistency, while court supervision protects the rights of
accused parties. Plea bargaining is still increasing popularity and use as a
way to settle criminal cases all around the world. The comparative study
highlights the variations in plea bargaining processes across the US, Canada,
and India and highlights the significance of clear standards, procedural
protections, and judicial oversight. These components are essential to
guaranteeing consistency and justice in plea agreements across different
jurisdictions.
To
sum up, this paper has offered a thorough analysis of the role that plea
bargaining plays in the criminal justice system of India. Plea bargaining is
shown as a complex instrument with significant effects on case settlement,
judicial efficiency, and legal justice, from its conceptual framework to its
historical foundations and international comparisons. The growth of plea
bargaining is evident when seen through the prism of Indian legal traditions,
demonstrating a harmony between antiquated ideals and contemporary demands. The
comparison with international practices draws attention to differences in
protocols and emphasises how crucial it is to have clear standards and
protections in place to guarantee dependability and justice. Plea bargaining
plays a more prominent role in determining prosecution tactics, defending the
rights of defendants, and influencing court decisions as it continues to get
attention and be widely used. There are still issues, nevertheless, such as the
need for precise guidelines, legal protections, and a fair delegation of power
between stakeholders. In the end, improving the effectiveness, equality, and
fairness of India's criminal justice system requires a sophisticated grasp of
the relevance of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is still a dynamic field that
has to be continuously examined, discussed, and improved in order to preserve
the values of justice and the rule of law as the legal system changes.
1.
Aman Sharan, reform of court processes, (Jan, 2024)
2.
Amin, S. (2018).
Doctrine of Plea Bargaining: An Adjunct of Criminal Justice
System. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 8(11),
648-663.
3.
Andrew Manuel Crespo,
The hidden law of plea bargaining, 118 Columbia
Law Review 1303–1424 (2018).
4.
Ani Sagar; Deval,
Beyond Bars: Addressing India’s Prison Crisis through Reforms and Alternatives,
6 Issue 2 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human. 1772 (2023).
5.
Carol A. Brook et al.,
A comparative look at plea bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New
Zealand, and the United States, 57 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1147 (2015).
6.
Dalbir Bharti, The
constitution and criminal justice administration (APH Publishing) (2002).
7.
Damayanti Doongaji, Crime
and Punishment in Ancient Hindu Society (Ajanta Publications) (1986).
8.
George F. Cole et al.,
The American system of criminal justice (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Pacific
Grove, California) (1992),
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/american-system-criminal-justice-2nd-ed
(last visited Apr 28, 2024).
9.
Harald Fischer-Tiné
& Michael Mann, Colonialism as civilizing mission: Cultural ideology in
British India (Anthem Press) (2004).
10.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr-Raj-Yadav/publication/311922736_reform_of_court_processes/links/5862945c08ae8fce490985b6/reform-of-court-processes
11.
Hughes, G. (1992).
Agreements for cooperation in criminal cases. Vand. L. Rev., 45, 1.
12.
Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt,
C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of
law and other norms of governance. Journal of comparative economics, 35(4),
659-68.
13.
Indian Contract Act,
Section 10 (1872) (India).
14.
Jagdish Sharan Verma
et al., Report of the committee on amendments to criminal law, (2013), (Jan,
2024), http://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/33614.
15.
Joginder Singh, Plea
Bargaining and its Result after One Year (Law update) 2007. ; also see Surender
Kumar and Kulwant Singh, Concept of Plea Bargaining and Criminal Law in India:
An Analysis, (Jan, 2024),
http://voresearch.org/documents/ 2013/1.4/1402.pdf.
16.
K. P. Pradeep, Plea
Bargaining–New Horizon in Criminal Jurisprudence, 16 Retrieved July 2014
(2010).
17.
Law Commission of
India, 154th Report on Code of Civil Procedure, 1973(1996).
18.
McGeorge Law Review
787–818 (2006).
19.
Otto Kirchheimer, Political
justice: the use of legal procedure for political ends (Princeton University
Press) (2015); Preet Bharara, Doing Justice: A Prosecutor’s Thoughts on Crime,
Punishment and the Rule of Law (Bloomsbury Publishing) (2019).
20.
Plea bargaining, 7 Commonwealth
Law Bulletin 1112–1120 (1981).
21.
Pramathanath Banerjea,
Public administration in ancient India (Macmillan) (1916).
22.
Rama Jois, Legal and
Constitutional History of India: Ancient, Judicial and Constitutional System
(Universal Law Publishing) (2004).
23.
Robert E. Scott &
William J. Stuntz, Plea bargaining as contract, 101 Yale LJ 1909 (1991).
24.
Sandeep Kaur, Judicial
system in ancient India: A review, 8 Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research
(AJMR) 190–200 (2019)
25.
Surajudeen Oladosu
Mudasiru, Democracy, plea - bargaining and the politics of anti-corruption
campaign in Nigeria (1999-2008), 9 African Journal of Political Science and
International Relations 335–348 (2015).
26.
Under Trial - Times of
India, (Jan, 2024), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/under-trial/articleshow/1711757.cms.
27.
Vijayavani New, Kannada
Daily 17 (2014).