Case Title: Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court in the present case, explored the options of popularizing the concept of "plea bargaining". The Court further noted that Indian law permits plea bargaining only with respect to the sentence and not with respect to the nature of the offence. However, the Court was apprised by Amicus that this can be changed without legislative action simply by applying the principle of the 'Alford plea' and the 'nolo contendere plea' prevalent in the USA.
In 'Alford plea' [North Carolina v. Alford 400 US 25 (1970)] the accused does not admit to having committed the crime but pleads guilty on an admission that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, in order to secure a lesser sentence than what may be imposed at trial. A 'non contendere plea' is a plea of no contest without admission of guilt.
The Court also noted that there might be cases where the plea may or may not be accepted by the State or the Court, depending upon the nature of the crime and the impact of the crime on the victim. In this regard, the Bench indicated that the involvement of the Court in the process would ensure judicious application of guidelines that may be laid down to distinguish unique or more heinous crimes.
It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority (CSLSA) has proposed a "Special Campaign" where efforts would be made to secure release of prisoners by adopting to compromise, plea-bargain or set off, and also that as per Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, the petitioner's case for remission had to be considered by the authorities upon him completing 14 years in custody.
In March,2021 the Court had bestowed NALSA with the duty to formulate a comprehensive guideline, inter alia, regarding 'how the matter of seeking remission after serving minimum sentence as per the respective State policies should be dealt with'. NALSA was asked to submit a comprehensive report for the Court's perusal and uniform application.
In July 2021, the NALSA apprised the Bench that it might not be possible to put in place a uniform policy, but made suggestions with respect to the following four vital aspects:
1. Timely identification of the eligible convicts;
2. Making applications by the eligible convicts with the help of District Legal Services Authority;
3.Timelines for the application procedure and decision on the premature release applications;
4. If the premature release applications are rejected by the State Government, then legal aid will be provided to the said convict to decide whether the said rejection should be challenged in a Court or not.