In a democratic country like India, judiciary plays a vital role in establishing a state of justice. Justice is desired by each and every person on this earth. But as we all know that Justice delayed is Justice denied, so it’s a matter of concern that how many people actually get justice in due time. Well this is a very vague question as there is no specificity to it. However it lays down the basis of a very common problem that has plagued the Indian courts. The problem of backlog of cases has been haunting the Indian courts for a long time.

Precisely speaking the criminal trials takes much longer than what they are expected to take and what actually they take. Thus it is very necessary that some sort of system is adhered to so as to speed up the trial process and relieve the courts from heavy backlog of cases. With such a large population it is quite obvious that at least thousands of crimes are committed almost everyday throughout the country. Thus it is all the more obvious that with such a rate of criminal cases pooling into the courts the available workforce falls very short of the expectations. Apart from that there are several appeals which are preferred from the trials which furthermore increase the case numbers in the court. In such a scenario it becomes a matter of concern as to how to control this problem.

Reasons for Delay in Disposal of Cases
· Increase in Litigation - Now a day’s people are in a habit of dragging their Grievances to the court of law, which can be solved outside the court.

· Non-adherence with the Code by both Judges as well as Lawyers.

· Judicial Vacancies - India has the lowest number of judges per capita in the world. Even smaller countries have around 80 judges per million people whereas this figure ranges between 9 to 11 judges per million people in India.

For once it can be understood that delay may occur in the civil cases but the same is not expected in the criminal proceedings. But the criminal justice system is in worst position and hence the common man has also lost its complete trust on the efficacy of the criminal redressal system. This acts as a real roadblock to development of any state or nation.

Nani Palkhiwala opined that: “Justice in common parlance is considered as blind but in India it is lame too and hobbles on crutches”.

For Example consider the condition of the poor victims of the Bhopal gas Leak disaster. Twenty seven years had passed to that ghastly incident; still now the victims were fighting for its compensation, which is in equivalent to the damage caused to them.|

Remedies to overcome delay in disposal of cases
The delay in delivery of justice can be overcome by following methods-
· Firstly, delay in rendering justice can be overcome by establishing more Courts and to increase the number of Judges according to population. There is access need to increase the number of Judges, specially at the local level for giving access to the ordinary people.

· There is a need to improve the basic infrastructure and management of resources. Modern technology and use of computers could also increase the efficiency of the Court system.
· Information counters should be set up in every Court for the conveyance of litigating public at National level.
· There should be some permanent vigilance provision to observe the working of the public prosecutor.
· Security system in Courts also needs improvement for confidence of people and fearless functioning of system.

· Our Criminal system also has an urgent need of independent investigative agency. Delay in Police investigation is also one reason due to which cases linger for years. It is too good to create an independent wing of police force, fully in charge of crime investigation and functioning under the direct control of independent prosecutor and that wing should be accountable to Judiciary and not to particular government of the time.

· There should be uniform patterns for the appeals and petitions to make the procedure easy.
· The institution involved in justice delivery such as Police ,the Prosecution ,the Courts, prisons etc requires to be reformed in terms of organization, procedures & accountability so that no where the citizen feels uneasiness.

· Investigating officers under Criminal Procedure Code has too many powers and these powers need to be curtailed and monitored by the magistrate in charge so as to prevent corruption.

Plea Bargaining- Meaning
“Plead Guilty and ensure Lesser Sentence” is the shortest possible meaning of Plea Bargaining.

Plea Bargaining fostered by the Indian Legislature is actually the sperm child of the West. The concept has been very much alive in the American System in the 19th century itself. Plea Bargaining is so common in the American System that every minute a case is disposed in the American Criminal Court by way of guilty plea. England, Wales, Australia and Victoria also recognizes plea bargaining. Every time we turn on to an American Cinema, we come across this concept.

Plea Bargaining can be defined as “Pre-Trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecution during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution”. It gives criminal defendants the opportunity to avoid sitting through a trial risking and conviction on the original more serious charge. For example, a criminal defendant charged with a theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a theft charge, which may not carry jail time. Plea Bargaining can be of three types:-

1. Charge Bargaining.
2. Sentence Bargaining.
3. Fact Bargaining.

Charge Bargaining is a common and widely known form of plea. It involves a negotiation of the specific charges or crimes that the DEFENDANT will face at trial. Usually, in return for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, a prosecutor will dismiss the higher or other charge(s). For example, in return for dismissing charges for first-degree murder, a prosecutor may accept a guilty plea for Manslaughter (subject to court approval).

Sentence bargaining involves the agreement to a plea of guilty in return for a lighter sentence. It saves the prosecution the necessity of going through trial and proving its case. It provides the defendant with an opportunity for a lighter sentence.

Fact Bargaining is the least used a prosecutor in which the Prosecutor agrees not to reveal any aggravating factual circumstances to the court because that would lead to a mandatory minimum sentence or to a more severe sentence under sentencing guidelines.

The Supreme Court was very much against the concept of Plea Bargaining before its introduction. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika, the Supreme Court of India held that it is settled law that on the basis of Plea Bargaining court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. The court has to decide it on merit. If the accused confesses his guilt, even then appropriate sentence is required to be implemented. The court further held in the same case that, mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence , nor can the accused bargain with the court that as he is pleading guilty his sentence should be reduced.

Despite strict opposition by the Supreme Court, the Government found it comfortable to introduce this concept. Long list of pending cases before the Criminal courts was cited as the reason for the enactment of this provision. If a person accepts his guilt, then the time of the Prosecution is saved, which can be then properly utilized for proving more serious offences.

Plea Bargaining is applicable only in respect of those offences for which punishment of imprisonment is upto period of 7 years. It does not apply where such offence affects the Socio-economic condition of the country or has been committed against women or committed against a child below the age of 14 years.

The application for plea bargaining should be filed by the accused voluntarily before the court which is trying the offence. The complainant and the accused are then given time by the court to work out satisfactory disposition of the case. The court may reduce the sentence to 1/4th if the accused pleads guilty. There shall be no appeal in the case where judgment has been pronounced by the court on the basis of plea bargaining.

Plea bargaining has emerged and gained acceptance in the legal community only in recent decades. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 which was introduced in the parliament attracted enormous public debate. Despite this huge hue and cry, the government found it acceptable and finally section 265-A TO 265-L have been added in the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to apply the plea bargaining.

The Division bench of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat V. Natwar Harchanji Thakor observed that, the very object of law is to provide easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal in the administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. There should not be anything static. It can thus be said that it is really a measure and redressal and it shall add a new dimension in the realm of judicial reforms.

Advantages of Plea Bargaining
Significant feature of method of Plea Bargaining is that it helps the Court and State to manage the case loads. It reduces the work load of the prosecutors enabling them to prepare for gravest case by leaving the effortless and petty offences to settle through plea bargaining. It is also a factor in reforming the offender by accepting the responsibility for their actions and by submitting them voluntarily before law, without having an expensive and time consuming trial. In case wherein the prosecution is weak, if trial is concluded, for want of proper witnesses or evidences and the ultimate result may be an acquittal, the prosecution will have a chance to find the accused as guilty, by co-operating with the accused for a plea bargaining.

An intelligent prosecutor may agree for a plea bargaining of an insignificant accused to collect evidence against other graver accused. Normally, in cases wherein aged or women witnesses have the vital role to prove a charge against the accused, their death or non co-operation , may be a real cause for adverse conclusion of the case. Here the prosecution avoids a chance of acquittal and the accused avoids a chance of conviction for more serious charges with higher punishments. From the angle of victim also, plea bargaining is a better substitute for his ultimate relief, as he can avoid a lengthy court process to see the accused, be convicted. The system gives a greater relief to a large number of under trials lodged in various jails of the country and helps reduce the long pendency in the court.

There are some other supporting factors of plea bargaining which fall into three main categories. First, some jurist maintains that it is appropriate as a matter of sentencing policy to reward defendants who acknowledge their guilt. They advance several arguments in support of this position, notably, that a bargained guilty plea may manifest an acceptance of responsibility or a willingness to enter the correctional system in a frame of mind that may afford hope for rehabilitation over a short period of time than otherwise would be necessary.

A second view treats plea bargaining, not primarily as a sentencing device, but as a form of dispute resolution. Some plea bargaining advocates maintain that it is desirable to afford the accused and the state of opinion of compromising factual and legal disputes. They observe that if a plea agreement did not improve the positions of both the accused and the state, one party or other would insist upon a trial.

Finally, some observers supports plea bargaining on grounds of economy or necessity. Viewing plea negotiation less as a sentencing device or a form of dispute resolution than as an administrative practice, they argue that society cannot afford to provide trials to all the accused who would demand them if guilty pleas were unrewarded. At least, there are more appropriate uses for the additional resources that an effective plea bargaining could save.

Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining
Plea Bargaining is problematic for at least some reasons. First, the prosecution has the power to present accused with unconscionable pressure. Though, procedure pleas as voluntary, there are every chances of being practically coerced. The prosecution has the incentive to maximize the benefit of pleading guilty in the weakest cases. The more likely an acquittal at trial, the more attractive a guilty plea is to the prosecution. But in a borderline case that does go forward, the prosecution may vary well threaten the most serious consequences to those accused who may very well be innocent. The defense lawyers who represent accused do not have the resources to independently investigate every case.

Plea Bargaining undercuts the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that plea negotiation is substantially more likely than trial to result in the conviction of innocent. Plea Bargaining result in unjust sentencing. This practice turns the accused’s fate on a single tactical decision which they say is irrelevant to desert, deterrence, or any other proper objective of criminal proceedings. Some critics maintain that plea bargaining results in unwarranted leniency for offenders and that it promotes a cynical view of the legal process.

Defense lawyer, trial judge and prosecutor are the fundamental elements in the working of plea bargaining. Prosecutors plainly are influenced by the equities of individual cases, the seriousness of the accused’s alleged crime, their prior criminal record, and so on. At times, prosecutors are influenced as well by their personal views of the law without a roving enquiry.

Through plea bargaining, a prosecutor can avoid much of the hard work of preparing cases for trial and for trying them. In addition, prosecutors can use plea bargaining to create seemingly impressive conviction rates. The personal bias with the defense lawyers also may influence plea bargaining practices. So, there may be desires for professional advancement either within the prosecutor’s office or after leaving it. Although most prosecutors probably do not deliberately sacrifice the public interest to their personal goals, the bargaining process may be influenced by conflict of interests, and prosecutors may rationalize decisions that serve primarily their own interest.

Private defense lawyers commonly are paid in advance, and their fees do not vary with the pleas their clients enter. Once a lawyer has pocketed the fee, his personal interest lie in disposing of a client’s case as rapidly as possible, that is, by entering a plea of “cop out lawyers” who pleads virtually all of their clients guilty sometimes represent large number of accused for relatively low fees. Some of these lawyers have been known to deceive their clients in the effort to induce them to plead guilty. The relatively small amount of remuneration that he is likely to receive for representing an indigent accused may seem inadequate compensation for a trial, but this amount may seem adequate as a fee for negotiating a plea of guilty.

Conclusion
The crime loses its gravity with the increase in the gap between the incidence of crime and the punishment of the offender. Plea Bargaining has, thus, been introduced in the realm of the criminal jurisprudence of India owing to the result of the prolonged trials and the umpteen cases that pile up over the years. Plea bargaining as a recognized and practiced concept has come a long way from its inception.

Plea Bargaining in India has moved from being pronounced illegal, unconstitutional and immoral to a great messiah for the criminal justice system and a welcome and inevitable change. Plea Bargaining is indeed a welcome change, but only as long as one considers the chief aim of the criminal justices system to be swift and inexpensive resolution of cases. However, if one were to agree that the chief aim of criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals into society, by making them undergo specified sentences in prison, then plea bargaining looses most of its charm.

Additionally, the justifications for plea bargaining do not consist solely of the need for an efficient administration of justice. Problems associated with plea bargaining may exist as a result of flaws in the assumptions of the different justifications. Instead of calling for a complete abolition of plea bargaining, critics should accept plea bargaining as a natural, although not necessarily inevitable, component of our adversary system.

To Conclude, plea bargaining is undoubtedly, a disputed concept. Few people have welcomed it while others have abandoned it. It is true that plea bargaining speeds up caseload disposition, but it does that in an unconstitutional manner. But perhaps we have no other choice but to adopt this technique. The criminal courts are too over burdened to allow each and every case to go on trial. Only time will tell if the introduction of this new concept is justified or not.

Written by: Shalin Chaudhary Law student Symbiosis Law School