Introduction
Introduced in 2006 as Chapter XXIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), plea bargaining was meant to reduce case backlog by allowing accused persons to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentencing. However, uptake has been minimal—just 0.11% of trial cases used the mechanism in 2022, according to an official study. Recent judicial pronouncements, including BNSS provisions and Supreme Court remarks, suggest openness to expanding plea bargaining beyond sentence-only negotiation, but significant operational and legal barriers remain. This article traces India’s journey with plea bargaining, critiques its limitations, and outlines reform pathways.
Legal Evolution & Current Framework
➤ Historical Path to Plea Bargaining
The Law Commission of India (Reports 142nd, 154th, 177th) and Malimath Committee recommended plea bargaining to modernise the criminal justice system following global practices. These reports proposed limited application to offences punishable up to seven years, excluding serious crimes and cases involving women or children. Legislative adoption followed in 2005 via an amendment to CrPC.([turn0search2]turn0search7])
➤ Chapter XXIA of CrPC
Sections 265A–265L govern the plea bargaining process:
-
Only first-time offenders charged with offences carrying less than seven years’ imprisonment are eligible.
-
Offences affecting socio-economic order or involving women or children are excluded.
-
Rules ensure voluntary application, legal counsel, and judicial verification.([turn0search2]turn0search5])
➤ BNSS 2023: Continuity and Reform
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (2023) retains plea bargaining provisions (Sections 290–303), including the existing restrictions. BNSS also imposes a 30-day time limit post-charge framing to file a plea request. However, BNSS has drawn criticism for potentially limiting plea bargaining and expanding police authority in preliminary inquiries.([turn0search3]turn0search6]turn0search12])
Low Adoption & Structural Bottlenecks
➤ Stark Underutilisation
In 2022, only 19,135 out of 17 million cases used plea bargaining (~0.11%). India records one of the lowest adoption rates globally.([turn0search0]turn0search4])
➤ Procedural Rigidities
Though ideally initiated before framing charges, in practice most plea bargaining applications occur after charges are formally framed, reducing their effectiveness. Courts today still view plea bargaining as a less attractive option compared to compounding, quashing, or witness testimonies.([turn0search0]turn0search4])
➤ Scope Limitations: Sentence Only
India permits only sentence bargaining—i.e. reduced punishment for admission of guilt. Offence bargaining (i.e. pleading to a lesser offence) is not yet allowed. Only a few global systems like the USA permit both. The Supreme Court has hinted at this gap.([turn0search1])
Judicial Commentary & Trend Indicators
➤ Supreme Court’s Suggestion to Broaden Scope
In July 2023, the Supreme Court observed that Indian plea bargaining is restricted to sentencing, unlike systems abroad that allow negotiation over offences themselves. The court suggested legislative review of expanding beyond mere sentence bargaining.([turn0search1])
➤ High Courts Urge Expansion with Safeguards
In State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2023), Kerala High Court encouraged legislative expansion to include certain economic offences where restitution suffices. In Gujarat High Court in its own motion (2023), courts directed systematic data collection on plea outcomes.([turn0search11])
➤ BNSS Time Restriction Impact
Under BNSS, the 30-day filing deadline post-charge framing potentially excludes many from accessing plea bargaining, especially when investigations are complex and victims or legal aid are delayed.([turn0search3]turn0search12])
Opportunities & Reform Imperatives
| Area | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Broaden Scope | Amend law to include offence bargaining (pleading to a lesser charge), especially in non-violent and economic offences |
| Victim Participation | Ensure victims/prosecutors are part of mutually satisfactory disposition before court approval |
| Awareness & Training | Conduct training for lawyers, prosecutors, and lower courts on plea system benefits and safeguards |
| Data Tracking & Tech Integration | Maintain judicial dashboards capturing plea cases, time saved, penal reduction, and participant feedback; enable digital submission processes |
| Legal Safeguards | Prohibit coercion, ensure representation by counsel, restrict plea offers when constitutional rights at stake |
| Victim Compensation Models | Embed conditional discharge or victim restitution mechanisms for first-time offenders with clean records and minor offences |
Implications of Reform
✅ Judicial Efficiency & Prison Decongestion
Enhanced use of plea bargaining could ease the 70% undertrial burden in prisons and reduce backlog, aligning with earlier policy goals.([turn0search5]turn0search6])
✅ Restorative Justice & Victim Restitution
Offence bargaining enables compensation models for financial harm, especially in fraud or economic cases, without compromising rights of plaintiff or public trial norms.
✅ Alignment with International Norms
Expanding beyond sentencing aligns India with countries where 90%+ criminal verdicts occur through plea agreements—efficient yet regulated justice pathways.([turn0search2])
⚠️ Risks of Misuse & Coercion
Unchecked bargaining can pressure innocent accused to plead guilty—especially marginalized or poor individuals—if not governed by judicial oversight and informed consent standards.
Conclusion
Nearly two decades into its adoption, India’s plea bargaining mechanism remains grossly underused, constrained by limited scope, procedural rigidity, and low legal awareness. While BNSS has preserved plea provisions, it adds timeline restrictions and fails to open offence bargaining. Yet, judicial observations, Law Commission critiques, and trends in High Court judgments highlight potential for expansion and smarter use.
If India can expand plea bargaining to include offence negotiation for suitable cases, enhance participation of victims, strengthen procedural safeguards, and build awareness across courts and legal practitioners, the mechanism could finally fulfill its promise: faster justice, reduced backlog, fair outcomes, and decongested prisons—without compromising constitutional safeguards.