Plea bargaining: Loss of an opportunity?

comparing laws in India, USA

and UK
(Special Repeat Project)

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. Priyanka Dhar
Faculty of Comparative Criminal Procedure

SUBMITTED BY:

Nikhil Parthsarthi
Roll. No.-91
I.D.- 1420141056

BATCH- XIV

SEMESTER IX

B.A. LLB (HONS.)

1
 DECLARATION

I, Nikhil Parthsarthi, have undergone research of the project work titled “ Plea bargaining:
Loss of an opportunity? comparing laws in India, USA and UK”, as a student of Comparative
Criminal Procedure hereby declares that this Research Project has been prepared by the student
for academic purpose only, and is the outcome of the investigation done by me and also
prepared by myself under the supervision of Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Hidayatullah National Law
University, Raipur. The views expressed in the report are personal to the student and do not
reflect the views of any authority or any other person, and do not bind the statute in any manner.

I also declare that this Research Paper or any part thereof has not been or is not being submitted
elsewhere for the award of any degree or Diploma. This report is the intellectual property of
the on the part of student research work, and the same or any part thereof may not be used in
any manner whatsoever in writing.

Nikhil Parthsarthi
Roll. No. 91

Batch- XIV

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the project “Plea bargaining: Loss of an opportunity? comparing
laws in India, USA and UK”. The practical realisation of the project has obligated the assistance
of many persons. Firstly, I express my deepest gratitude towards Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Faculty of
Comparative Criminal Procedure, to provide me with the opportunity to work on this project. Her
able guidance ship and supervision in terms of his lectures were of extreme help in understanding
and carrying out the nuances of this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the library and for the internet facilities provided by the University.

Some typography or printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be
grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Nikhil Parthsarthi
Roll. No. 91

Batch- XIV

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration..................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5

Research Methodology .................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 2: Plea- Bargaining in India ............................................................................................. 7

Chapter 3: Plea Bargaining in U.S.A. and U.K. .......................................................................... 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 15

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 17

4
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“The law is a cudgel when necessary and a balm where appropriate” – Stewart Stafford

India 's success in investigating, prosecuting and trying criminal cases is under a cloud of doubt
and reputation crisis as more than 70% of the accused are acquitted.1 If identifying crime by
competent investigation is difficult or impossible to obtain evidence, what are the alternatives to
send the criminals to jails? One solution is "plea bargaining" where confessions under judicial
supervision can be bargained from suspect, which may result in speedy prosecution and
sentencing.2

In India plea bargaining is a relatively new concept. In the present criminal justice system, most
of the convictions are obtained through bargained pleas. In a plea bargaining the accused and the
prosecutor work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to the approval of the
court. The defendant pleads guilty to a smaller charge as to only one or some of the charges
framed by the magistrate in return for a smaller sentence than that for the graver charge. Plea
bargaining thus applies to pre-trial arrangements between the defendant through his / her lawyer
and the prosecutor under which the accused decides to plead guilty in return for reduced penalties.
In India, the position is very different from US and Europe, where plea bargaining is a widely
prevalent practice which helps expedite the legal process.

Plea bargaining enables the accused to negotiate with the magistrate for the sentence to be
imposed. However, the adoption of the concept of plea-bargaining in Cr. P.C was the topic of
confusion and debates until 2005, because the Indian Judiciary was reluctant to approve of it. In
addition, the concept is not widely accepted in India as it has been recently incorporated into the
criminal procedural law. In India the initiation of plea-bargaining has to be by accused which is
different from U.S.A. Indian law allows for the number of discussions between the complainant
and the prosecution or the court itself which is different from U.S.A. The magistrate must take
great care at the time of application of plea-bargaining.3

11
Mail Today Bureau, 3.3 Crore cases pending in Indian Courts, pendency at its highest: CJI Dipak Misra, Business
Today (July 20, 2020), https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/3-3-crore-cases-pending-
indian-courts-pendency-figure-highest-cji-dipak-misra/story/279664.html.
2
Douglas D. Guidorizzi, “Should we Really Ban Plea Bargaining?: The Core Concern of Plea Bargaining Critics”,
47 Emory Law Journal, (1998), p.753
3
Arthur D. Klein, Plea Bargaining, 14 Crim. L.Q. 289, 305 (1972).
5
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES

• To study the concept of Plea Bargaining.

• To understand the Plea Bargaining laws in India, U.S.A. and U.K.

CONCEPTS

Plea Bargaining is a process of Pre-Trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecution
during which the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for lesser sentence
by the court. It gives criminal defendants the opportunity to avoid sitting through a trial risking
conviction on the original more serious charge.

NATURE OF STUDY

The nature of the study in this project is doctrinal and is primarily descriptive and analytical.

SOURCES OF DATA

This project is largely based on secondary & electronic sources of data. Books, case laws,
journals & other reference as guided by faculty of Comparative Criminal procedure were
primarily helpful for the completion of this project

CHAPTERISATION

Chapter 1 has introduced the research project by giving a brief introduction of the concept of Plea
Bargaining.

Chapter 2 has talked about the system of plea bargaining in India.

Chapter 3 focuses on the system of plea bargaining in U.S.A. and U.K.

6
 CHAPTER 2: PLEA- BARGAINING IN INDIA
Plea Bargaining adopted by the Indian system is a western concept, this concept developed in
the 19th century U.S.A. Plea Bargaining is so common in the American system that each case
is expected to be disposed of by way of guilty plea.

In India, the concept of plea bargaining was introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 2005 which introduced Chapter XXI A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Act
was made enforceable from 5th July 2006. Before the amendment of 2006, there were some
provisions in some acts which resembled the concept of plea bargaining like, Sections 206(1)
and 206(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 208(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, allowed the
accused to enter into a guilty plea for petty offences and pay small fines to close the case. But
plea-bargaining was not completely accepted in the criminal justice system in India.4

The concept of plea bargaining has been borrowed from the Constitution of the United States
of America. In the 142nd Report5 of the Law Commission of India plea bargaining was
proposed as an alternative to tackle huge problems and loopholes of the criminal cases in the
courts.6

Under the NDA government, a committee headed by Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief
Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and Karnataka,was constituted to resolve the issue
of backlog of cases in the trial courts. The Malimath Committee submitted its Report in 2003
also recommended the use of plea-bargaining system as a solution for quick disposal of
criminal cases. The Committee was particularly keen to apply the successful and well-
established practice of plea bargaining prevalent in the United States in the Indian scenario.
The Committee in its Report stated,

“Taking into account the advantages of plea-bargaining, the recommendations of the Law
Commission contained in the 142nd report and the 154th report may be incorporated so that a

4
Concessional Treatment for Offender who on their own initiative choose to plead guilty without bargaining, Law
Com. Of Ind., Report No. 142 (1991).
5
142nd Law Commission of India Report, Concessional Treatment for Offenders who on their own initiative
choose to plead guilty without any bargaining (1991), available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-
169/Report142.pdf
6
Shaista Amin, Plea Bargaining- An Indian Approach, 4 GJLDP 67, 89 (2014).

7
large number of cases can be resolved, and early disposals can be achieved. By no stretch of
imagination can the taint of legalising a crime will attach to it.” 7

The Committee pointed out that Probation of Offenders Act and CrPC already gives the
magistrate the power to pass a probation order. It was pointed out that the power of executive
pardon and remission of sentences only lessen the length of imprisonment and do not condone
the crime committed. It explained the advantages of plea bargaining by stating that it will serve
the already over burned Indian courts as it will facilitate a quick disposal of a criminal case.
The committee was of the view, that there was a possibility that number of acquittals will also
be reduced by using this concept. It stated that the Committee was in agreement of the views
of the Law Commission of India in its 142nd and 154th reports wherein it examined the topic
of plea-bargaining/compounding/settlement without trial and made detailed recommendations
to promote settlement of criminal cases without trial.8

Under Chapter XXIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sections 265A to 265L deal
with the concept of plea bargaining. Plea Bargaining in India is allowed in cases wherein:

• “The maximum period of imprisonment is of seven years

• The offence does not have an impact on the socio-economic condition of the country.

• The offence is not committed against a child or a woman.”9

It also provides that Chapter XXIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 will not apply to
offences which affect the socio-economic condition of the country or have been committed
against a woman, or a child below fourteen years of age.10

7
Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Parliament of India, Report of the
Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System,2003.
8
Ibid.
9
see Section 265A,CrPC, 1973
10
.Ibid., Offence under the following Statutes have been declared as the offence affecting socio-economic
condition of the country for the purpose of Sub Section (1) of Section 265-A through a notification issued on 11th
July 2006, namely Dowry prohibition Act 1961. Commission of Sati Prevention Act, 1987. The Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. Protection of
Women from Domestic Violance Act 2005. The Infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods
(regulation of production, supply and distribution) Act 1992, Provision of Fruit products order 1955 (issued under
essential commodities Act 1955), provision of meat food products order 1973, offences with respect to animals
under wild life (protection) Act 1972, the scheduled casts, schedules Tribes(Prevention of atrocities) Act 199,
offences under the protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, offences listed under section 23 and 28 of the Juvienile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, The Army Act 1950, The Air Force Act 1950, the Navy Act
1957, offences under section 59 to 81 and 83 of the Delhi metro Railway (Operation and maintain) act 2002, The
explosives Act 1884, Cable Television Act 1995, and the Cinematograph Act 1952.

8
Plea Bargaining undeniably helps in quick disposal of cases and reduces the burden on the trial
courts. It helps to reach a mutual understanding between the prosecutor and the accuse. It is a
form of alternative dispute resolution and a rehabilitative approach to criminals. It is found
through some studies that, victim’s participation in plea bargain negotiations has been proven
to contain their vindictive instincts, decreases their appraisal of the system being too lenient on
criminals and develops a feeling of fairness in the whole process. Increased victim satisfaction
has proven to, in effect, enhance the efficiency of the criminal justice system by ensuring his
future support to the system.11

Plea Bargaining can be of three types: -

1. Charge Bargaining.

2. Sentence Bargaining.

3. Fact Bargaining.

Charge Bargaining is a common form of plea bargaining. It involves a negotiation of the

specific charges or crimes that the accused will face at trial. Typically, in return for a plea of
guilty to a lesser count of charge, a prosecutor will dismiss the higher or other charge(s). For
example, in return for dismissing charges for culpable homicide amounting to murder, a
prosecutor may accept a guilty plea for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (subject to
court approval).

Sentence bargaining involves settlement to a plea of guilty for a lighter sentence in return
thereof. It saves the prosecution side the hassle of trial and proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt. It gives the accused an opportunity for a lighter sentence.

Fact Bargaining is the least used form of plea bargaining in which the Prosecutor agrees not to
disclose any material factual circumstances to the court because that would lead to a conviction
and to a more severe sentence under the penal laws.

In India, the approach of the Supreme Court of India towards plea bargaining has been a mixed
bag, initially, it criticized the concept of plea bargaining through its various judgements. The
Supreme Court was very much against the concept of Plea Bargaining before its introduction.

11
Mohammad Ashraf, Plea Bargaining in India – An appraisal, 23 ALJ, 104,118 (2016).

9
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of
Maharashtra held that,

“if the dispute…finds itself in the field of criminal law, “Law Enforcement” repudiates the idea
of compromise as immoral, or at best a necessary evil. The “State” can never compromise. It
must “enforce the law”.”12

In Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat and Anr., the Supreme Court held that,
“the practice of plea bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and could encourage corruption and
collusion.” 13 Similarly, in Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat, the Court expressed its hesitant
approach on the concept of plea bargaining as in its view it was likely to be misused.14

The Indian courts have time and again observed that the concept of plea bargaining was against
the public policy of India as an accused cannot bargain for the offences he committed.

It has also been debated that the practice of plea bargaining could go against Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In the case of Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, the Court said that
“the act of inducing and leading the accused to plead guilty under an assurance or a promise
will violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”15

In State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chandrika, the Court deprecated the concept of plea bargaining
and held the concept as unconstitutional. The Court was of the opinion that “the concept of
plea bargaining cannot form the basis for disposal of cases that are of criminal nature. Such
cases should be only decided on the merit. It also opined that a sentence given to the accused
should be as per what the specific statute or law says. 16 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.”

However, there are cases where the benefits of plea bargaining were acknowledged and
encouraged by the courts. One such case is, State Of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor,

12
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1929
13
Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 1980 CriLJ 553
14
Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 854
15
Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 1 SCC 194
16
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, 2000 Cr.L.J. 384(386)

10
where the Court recognised the importance of plea bargaining.17 It emphasised on the fact that
“every “plea of guilty” which is done in the statutory procedure of the criminal trial, should not
be regarded as “Plea Bargaining”. It has to be decided on a case to case basis. Taking into
account the increasing problems in the criminal justice system, the Court was of the opinion
that the purpose of the law makers is to create laws that help in providing easy, expeditious and
cheap justice.”18

CHAPTER 3: PLEA BARGAINING IN U.S.A. AND U.K.

Plea Bargaining in U.S.A.

In a criminal case in the United States of America, the accused has three options as far as pleas
are concerned-guilty, not guilty or a plea of nolo contendere.19 Simply put, a plea-bargain is an
agreement between the prosecution and the accused regarding the disposition of a criminal
charge. However, unlike most contractual agreements, it is not enforceable until a judge
approves it.20 Plea-bargaining thus refers to pre-trial talks between the defence and the
prosecution, in which the accused agrees to plead guilty to a smaller charge in exchange for
certain concessions guaranteed by the prosecutor.

Plea-bargaining has evolved as a common feature of the US criminal justice system through
the years. Although courts were initially wary of the practice, the 1920s witnessed a increase
in plea bargaining that made its connection with the complexity of the American criminal trial
process noticeable. Thus, plea-bargaining gradually became a widespread practice and it was
estimated that 90% of all criminal convictions in the United States were through plea
bargains.21 In 1970, the constitutional validity of plea-bargaining was upheld in Brady v.
United States22, where it was stated that “it was not unconstitutional to extend a benefit to a

17
In Murulidhar Meghraj Loyat v. State of Maharashtra ( 1976), Kusumbai v. State of Gujarat (1980), and State
of U.P. v. Chandrika, (2000) , Judiciary did not find it necessary to recognize it.
18
State of Gujarat vs Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005) 1 GLR 709
19
While for purposes of punishment, a plea of nolo contendere is essentially the same as a plea of guilty, such a
plea cannot be used against the defendant as an admission of guilt in subsequent cases. See C.H.
Whitebread: Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Constitutional Cases and Concepts, (1986) 407-408.
20
John Bradley, For Your First Guilty Plea?, (2004) 67 Tex BJ 230.
21
It must be noted however that the incidence of guilty pleas cannot be taken as an indication of the extent of
plea-bargaining because in some cases, defendants may plead guilty without any hope of lenient treatment and
such pleas would continue to be submitted even without the existence of guilty plea concessions. In such a
scenario, official guilty plea rates may overstate the bargaining rate. On the other hand, some defendants who
plead not guilty, waive a jury and present a perfunctory defence before a judge, often receive lenient treatment.
Thus official guilty plea rates may also understate the importance of plea-bargaining. See Sanford H. Kadish,
Stephen J. Schulofer, Monrad G. Paulsen, Criminal Law and its Processes: Cases and Materials, (1983) 155.
22
397 US 742 (1970)

11
defendant who in turn extends a benefit to the State.” In another case, in Santobello v. New
York23 the United States Supreme Court formally accepted that “plea-bargaining was essential
for the administration of justice and when properly managed, was to be encouraged.”

Plea bargaining is a commonly used in American criminal justice system and approximately
ninety percent of the cases in America are disposed by plea bargaining.24

Plea bargaining was officially recognised as a formal mechanism for deciding criminal cases
in Brady v. United States case.25 The case held plea bargaining to be constitutional. Moreover,
the bargaining is considered as a significant part of American justice system by American Bar
Association standards on criminal justice as well.26

In Peter Westen and David Westinit was observed by the U.S supreme court that “the
persecutor and the defendant must adhere to the terms of the plea bargaining to make it legally
valid. And, a plea bargaining will be legally binding only if it is approved by a judge. Moreover,
in the light of this case it can be concluded that if the terms of the plea bargaining are not
complied with, by one party, then the aggrieved party will be entitled to remedies.”27

The interesting aspect in U.S.A. is that, in most of the cases the accused plead guilty because
of plea bargaining. Although it was argued that the plea bargaining can be considered
synonymous to guilty pleas, however, in most of the cases guilty plea was obtained through
plea bargaining.28 Also, among, plea bargaining, charge bargaining is most commonly used.

In USA, Plea bargaining takes place in three stages: (1) The defendant may plead guilty to
certain charge or charges in exchange of prosecutor, dropping other charges against him: (2)
The defendant may agree to plead guilty to certain charge or counts of charges if the prosecutor
undertakes to not to file anymore charges (3) The defendant may agree to plead guilty for

23
397 US 742 (1970)
24
Plea and charge bargaining, Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S department of Justice, available at,
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf, last seen on 24/07/2020.
25
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
26
American Bar Association, Standards relating to the administration of criminal justice, The prosecution function
Standard 3-4.1 (3ed 1992).
27
Emilio C. Viano, Plea bargaining in United States: A perversion of Justice, available at,
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2012-1-page-109.htm#re7no7, Last seen on
25/7/2020.
28
Peet M Bekker, Plea bargaining in the United States of America and South Africa, 29 (2), 168, 222, The
Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa (1996).

12
serious offences if the prosecutor promises either to drop other serious charges or not to file
any more charges.

Therefore, in normal plea bargaining, the agreement is initiated by the prosecutor, it is the
prosecutor who offers to either reduce the statement or the charges filed against the defendant
as the only objective is to get a conviction. Hence, in US, only the prosecutor and the defendant
is involved in the process of plea negotiation. In USA, the plea bargaining takes place outside
the court, in other words plea bargaining is a kind of out of court settlement or a means of
alternate dispute resolution.

Plea Bargaining in U.K.

Plea bargaining including charge bargaining is not practiced in UK as much in U.S.A. Plea
bargaining as a concept is still in initial stages in England. That is because the considerations
which act as motivation for the parties to enter into plea negotiation in America are not present
in U.K. Moreover, the English Courts have been reluctant to apply the use of plea negotiation
as an alternative method for disposal of criminal cases.29 The main reason for non-acceptance
of plea bargaining in England is because of the amount of discretion the trial judges have over
sentencing. Unlike U.S.A. most of the offences in U.K (except murder) do not have fixed
sentences. Therefore, the sentencing policy in U.K varies much more than in America. Such a
system of Sentencing has two major consequences: (1) Since the sentencing policy is flexible
and the judges have enormous amount of discretion therefore the pressure to reduce the
harshness of the law by using alternative methods is much lesser. (2) Since it’s the trial judge
who has the ultimate discretion of sentencing, therefore it is difficult for the prosecution to
make any promise to the defendant regarding concession of sentence.30

29
Atkinson, [1978] 2 All E.R. 460, 462.
30
John Baldwin and Michael McConville, Plea Bargaining and Plea Negotiation in England, 13 (2), 287, 307,
Law & Society Review, (1979), available at, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053255, Last seen on 24/03/2018.

13
Another factor which accounts for the difference between American and English system of
plea bargaining is due to difference in role of prosecutors. In United states it the prosecutor
who is responsible of plea-bargaining agreement. It is the prosecutor’s decision whether to
proceed with the option of plea negotiation or not, and it is him who decides whether to offer
charge bargaining or sentence bargaining to the defendant.

However, on the other hand, in England, professional prosecutors generally do not conduct
criminal prosecution. It is the barrister who conducts the prosecution in criminal cases, he can
appear for both the prosecution and the defence.31 Unlike prosecutors in America, the barristers
in U.K do not have the discretion to drop charges. Moreover, is it considered unethical in
England if the prosecution gives any recommendation for sentencing. Hence, the use of plea
negotiation in England as an informal way of disposing cases is limited because of the
availability of the power to the trial judge to use his discretion over the trial, as well as the
sentencing and prosecution.

31
John L. Heberling, Conviction Without Trial, Anglo American Law review (1973).

14
 CONCLUSION

The contested concept of plea bargaining is rather a system of convenience and mutual benefit
than a matter of justice, legality or constitutionality. Criminal justice system is ultimately in
need of a dramatic shift. It could be a positive change but only when cases could be handled
quickly and easily. If the criminal justice system's primary aim is to rehabilitate criminals into
society by subjecting them to prescribed prison terms, then plea bargaining loses much of its
appeal. it is often overlooked but, the various stakeholders of the criminal justice system
practice plea bargaining. Putting this mechanism under judicial review opens the possibility of
fair negotiation in such negotiations. Plea negotiation is unavoidable part of adversarial
structure in the present atmosphere.

Nevertheless, the plea-bargaining mechanism should be effectively used to make use of the
available process and to secure the gains from these changes, for which the police, the judiciary
and the bar need to recognize it first and seek to implement it. Defending attorneys should
persuade the litigant to accept the plea bargaining instead of viewing the plea bargaining as a
challenge to their profession. It is clear that police and judges' capacity building will be the
high priority and a requirement for using plea bargaining. This can be seen from the experience
of the US that the plea deal remains a controversial concept and a questionable practice. Given
that the overloading of courts with the piling up of criminal cases undermines the system's
stability, plea bargaining can be acknowledged as one of the steps needed to speed up the
disposal of cases. After giving this mechanism a test, a detailed review of its operation, its
effect on crime rate, conviction rate and eventually how the rule of law is affected should be
carried out.

Unlike in the United States of America where plea bargaining is available for all kinds of
offences, in India there is a limitation on the offences for which accused can use the concept
of plea bargaining. Furthermore, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, it is the
accused who plays an active role in the procedure of plea bargaining as it is a completely
voluntary process. Hence, it would not be an overstatement to say that the concept of plea
bargaining has not been adopted in India in its entirety which renders the chapter XXIA of
CrPC only partially effective and it has been highly underutilised in India.

15
There is also no reason to expect that the trend in India would reach the same degree and
magnitude of success as it has in the United States. The concept of plea bargaining introduced
ten years ago in India has been slow to gain widespread acceptance, primarily due to lack of
understanding among the prisoners and court officers under trial. These factors have generally
limited applicability and have restricted the reach of plea bargaining. When a principle is
incorporated in a legal framework it should be done in a way, foreseeing the challenges that
might be encountered at the experimental level. The twelve provisions as such don’t show any
tendency of reducing case load. If citizens are to be encouraged to use the alternative remedy
of plea bargaining, then there is an urgency to bring in clarity and predictability in the
provisions.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS AND ONINE RESOURCES

• Stephen J. Schulhofer, Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1037, 1107

(1984).
• “Crime in India”, National Crime Records Bureau, 2006-15.
• Josh Bowers, Grassroots Plea Bargaining, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 85, 122 (2007).
• Justice Under Trial: A study of Pre-trial detention in India, Amnesty
International, https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_YCJ8RArz-
32Z4mdWBvDwBzuCHN65lD/view.
• Richard L. Lilppke, Retributivism and Plea Bargaining, 25 Crim. Just. Ethics 3, 16
(2006).

WEBSITES

• http://www.jstor.org.

• https://www.indialawjournal.org

• https://en.wikipedia.org

• https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com
• https://www.latestlaws.com

17