Abstract

India’s criminal justice system, currently burdened by over 52 million pending cases, faces an urgent need for procedural innovations that enhance judicial efficiency without compromising constitutional safeguards. One such reform was the introduction of plea bargaining in 2005 through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (CLAA), 2005 aimed at expediting minor criminal trials and reducing court congestion. This paper examines whether plea bargaining, which is largely inspired by American legal practice, fits within India’s legal and constitutional framework or instead creates doctrinal and ethical tensions. The author aims to analyze statutory provisions under Chapter XXI-A of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, the judicial interpretations emanating from key cases, and comparative insights drawn from the United Kingdom and especially the United States given that this entire concept is rooted within that country’s jurisprudence. The author aims to discuss this concept’s compatibility with constitutional protections under Articles 14 (equality), 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination), and 21 (life and personal liberty). Although theoretically promising, plea bargaining remains underutilized, accounting for just 0.11% of cases in 2022, as per leading reports. In this respect, the paper identifies key barriers to its adoption, including limited legal awareness, insufficient legal aid, and cultural resistance. The author argues that with robust procedural safeguards, judicial training, and transparent oversight, plea bargaining can evolve into an effective tool to balance expediency with fairness in India’s criminal justice process.