Community Service as a Sentencing Alternative: Towards a Reformative and Restorative Criminal Justice System in India

“Prior to the enactment of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the only statutory provision explicitly recognising community service in India was Section 18(1)(c), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.”

“Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.”

— Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

Introduction: The reformative dimension of community service

Recently, the film Sitaare Zameen Par, starring Amir Khan, was released and screened across cinemas. The storyline follows a basketball coach who is penalised by a Judge for driving under the influence and colliding with a police vehicle. However, instead of imposing a conventional custodial sentence, the Court directs him to undertake community service by rendering his expertise as a coach to neurodivergent adults struggling with down syndrome. Initially perceiving the order as a punishment and an unwelcome obligation, he gradually experiences moral transformation and empathy through meaningful engagement with his team. While inspired by Woody Harrelson’s Champions, the Indian adaptation resonates deeply with domestic audiences through its cultural contextualisation of empathy, inclusion, and rehabilitation.

An earlier cinematic example is Shararat (2002), starring Abhishek Bachchan, in which a mischievous youth is ordered to work in an old age home as a penalty for public nuisance. Through this experience, he undergoes moral introspection and reformation.

Both narratives underscore a foundational criminological insight — rehabilitation through social engagement achieves outcomes that punitive isolation rarely produces. They mirror an evolving jurisprudential recognition that community service benefits both the offender and the community.

Historical evolution of community service as a penal concept in India

The idea of incorporating community service into India’s penal policy predates its statutory introduction. The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978 proposed inserting Section 74-A to formally recognise community service as an alternative punishment. Although passed by the Rajya Sabha, it lapsed upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1979.¹

Subsequently, the Law Commission of India, in its 156th Report², revisited the idea of introducing community service as an alternative punitive measure. While recognising its potential to promote reformative justice, the Commission expressed reservations about its practical implementation, particularly with respect to the need for continuous monitoring and administrative supervision of offenders undergoing such service.³

Further endorsement came in 2003 from the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, chaired by Dr Justice V.S. Malimath (popularly known as the Malimath Committee). The Committee advocated for the inclusion of community service within the Indian penal framework as a viable alternative to custodial sentences. It emphasised that such measures could facilitate rehabilitation, reduce prison overcrowding, and promote restorative justice principles.⁴

Prior to the enactment of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the only statutory provision explicitly recognising community service in India was Section 18(1)(c), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This provision empowered the Juvenile Justice Board to impose community service as a corrective disposition for child offenders, reflecting a shift towards a more humane and reformative approach in juvenile justice.

Understanding the legal nature and character of “community service”

A prerequisite for meaningful discussion is a clear understanding of “community service”. In most established societies, voluntary community service is upheld as a civic virtue. However, the concept undergoes a fundamental transformation when the task is judicially mandated for an offender. In this context, it is correctly viewed as a form of punitive sanction or a direct alternative to conventional punishment. The Court-ordered community service is inherently non-voluntary, constituting a bounded legal obligation to perform assigned labour for the benefit of the community or society. Non-compliance with this obligation incurs legal sanctions, typically manifesting as a physical or monetary penalty.

Judicial recognition and application of community service prior to the BNS

The state of Indian correctional facilities presents a significant challenge. As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report (as of 31 December 2023) the country held 5,30,333 prisoners, with a notable 73.5 per cent classified as undertrial prisoners (UTPs), while convicts accounted for 25.6 per cent. Uttar Pradesh reported the highest concentration of undertrials in 2023. Delhi has the highest occupancy rate among all States and Union Territories, at an alarming 200 per cent. This situation is aggravated by an alarmingly high occupancy rate of 120.8 per cent at the national level, indicating severe institutional overcrowding.⁵ Recognising this, the Supreme Court of India has consistently championed the necessity for reforming and decongesting the prison system within a comprehensive human rights framework.

This judicial concern reflects an evolving philosophical shift towards reformative justice. In Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab⁶ the Supreme Court established that the primary aim of criminal law should be a “reformative approach to punishment”, ensuring offender rehabilitation without compromising community conscience and thereby securing social justice. Furthermore, in Babu Singh v. State of U.P.⁷, the Court emphasised that justice must prioritise restorative measures — such as community service and personal development — with the goal being reform rather than mere punitive action.

Prior to the enactment of the new criminal laws, the concept of community service was generally external to the traditional Indian criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the High Courts and the Supreme Court frequently exercised discretion by making community service a condition for granting relief, for example, when quashing charge-sheets or granting bail. Some of the judicial instances are discussed below:

The Supreme Court in Solemen SK v. State of W.B.⁸ ordered the release of a convict who was later found to have been a juvenile at the time of the offence. Instead of referring the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, the Court directed him to plant 100 trees within one year as a form of community service.

In Vishal Awtani v. State of Gujarat⁹, the Gujarat High Court directed the State Government to frame a policy mandating that all individuals caught without wearing masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic perform compulsory community service at designated COVID-19 care centres.

Similarly, in Mohd. Umair v. State (NCT of Delhi)¹⁰, the Delhi High Court directed a 21-year-old accused to perform one month of community service at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib while quashing the first information report (FIR) on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute.

In Manoj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)¹¹, the Delhi High Court directed an accused who had forcefully kissed a woman and thereby outraged her modesty, to undertake community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital every Saturday and Sunday.

Likewise, in Narendra Upadhyay v. Narendra Singh¹², the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while restoring a criminal case filed in 2013, directed the defaulting lawyer to perform one hour of community service at a Mercy Home, observing that litigants should not be made to suffer for their counsel’s lapses.

In High Court of Karnataka v. Ekta Singh¹³, the Karnataka High Court dropped contempt proceedings against a doctor who tendered an unconditional apology and volunteered to engage in community service for one day every month at a government hospital in Bengaluru.

Similarly, in SB v. State of M.P.¹⁴, the Madhya Pradesh High Court compounded a case of ragging after the senior student expressed remorse for his conduct, directing him to perform seven days of community service in the university library.

In a recent case reported in media in Pune, popularly known as Pune Porsche case, a minor driving a Porsche car caused a fatal accident resulting in two deaths. The Juvenile Justice Board initially sentenced him to 15 days of community service, requiring him to assist the traffic police and write an essay on road accidents. The decision invited widespread public criticism for being unduly lenient, and the Board subsequently revoked his bail order.

Statutory incorporation of community service under the BNS

The term “community service” is defined in the Explanation to Section 23, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Explanation states:

23. Sentences which Magistrates may pass.—

* * *

Explanation.—“Community service” shall mean the work which the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he shall not be entitled to any remuneration.

For the first time the “community service” as a form of punishment has been introduced in Section 4 BNS corresponding to Section 53 of the repealed Penal Code, 1860. Community service can be understood to mean a mandatory dignified service by order of court by the accused without any remuneration for the betterment of the community and any section of society. Community service serves a larger purpose of inculcating a sense of responsibility and paying back to society in the offenders.

Under Section 4(f) BNS, “community service” is recognised as a distinct form of punishment alongside death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment — rigorous or simple, forfeiture of property and fine. It is imposable in respect of six specified offences—

1. Section 202 BNS: Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade.

2. Section 209 BNS: Non-appearance in court in response to a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS.

3. Section 226 BNS: Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power.

4. Section 303(2) BNS: Theft where the value of the stolen property is less than Rs 5000 and a person is convicted for the first time and returns or restores the value of property.

5. Section 355 BNS: Misconduct in public by a drunken person.

6. Section 356(2) BNS: Defamation.

It is pertinent that community service is an alternative punishment for offences under Sections 202, 209, 226, 355 and 356(2) BNS, as indicated by the conjunction “or” in these provisions. Interestingly, under Section 303(2) BNS, community service is not just an alternative punishment for theft; it is the sole mandatory punishment that the Court must impose for this specific offence.

Legal implications of default in performing community service: Ambiguities in Section 8 BNS

Now the pertinent question that arises is as to what measures should be taken if a convict fails to perform the assigned community service as directed by the Court, or performs it only partially or unsatisfactorily. Section 8 BNS outlines the procedure for the liability of a convict in default of community service. The section is being reproduce hereunder:

8. Amount of fine, liability in default of payment of fine, etc.—

* * *

(4) The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine or in default of community service may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.

(5) If the offence is punishable with fine or community service, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine or in default of community service shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine or in default of community service, shall not exceed,—

(a) two months when the amount of the fine does not exceed five thousand rupees;

(b) four months when the amount of the fine does not exceed ten thousand rupees; and

(c) one year in any other case.

The above provision seems to be unclear so far as the “community service” is concerned. It indicates to the ambiguities or lacunae in the drafting of Section 8 regarding the default of community service. While Section 8(4) mentions default of community service, it does not explicitly specify the duration of imprisonment in the same way as it does for fine defaults in all circumstances. The BNS is reported to have a provision for the termination of imprisonment upon the payment of the fine, but it is not explicitly clear on how imprisonment terminates when it is imposed in default of community service if the service is subsequently performed or otherwise rectified. Legislative or judicial clarification is needed on this point.

In the absence of a clarifying legislative amendment or a definitive judicial pronouncement to rectify existing ambiguity, the predominant legal perspective strongly advises that the sentencing court must pre-emptively and explicitly specify within the original order of conviction the alternative term of imprisonment to be imposed in the event of a default in the performance of community service.

Need for expansion of the applicability and scope of community service

Although the legislature has formally introduced the concept of community service as an alternative to incarceration, its practical applicability remains extremely limited. In reality, trial courts or Magistrate Courts rarely encounter matters in which community service can be imposed — most commonly restricted to cases of theft where the value of stolen property is below Rs 5000. In the contemporary context, such cases have also become increasingly rare, as the value of stolen property typically exceeds this threshold.

To give meaningful effect to the philosophy underlying community service, its scope must therefore be broadened. It may appropriately extend to offences punishable with imprisonment of up to two years, or those where the law provides an alternative sentence of fine. Even certain offences carrying a maximum punishment of up to seven years — provided they are not grave in nature — may also be considered. In such categories of cases, priority may be afforded to first-time offenders, young persons below 21 years of age, the elderly, infirm individuals, and women. However, it may not be feasible to create an exhaustive list of specific offences appropriate for such sentencing.

Guidelines notified by different States for effective implementation of community service as a form of punishment

As of now, the State of Maharashtra¹⁵, State of W.B.¹⁶, State of Assam¹⁷, State of Manipur¹⁸, State of Haryana¹⁹, and very recently the State of U.P.²⁰ have published the notifications prescribing Guidelines in the nature of a legislative framework for the effective implementation of community service as a punishment under the BNS. As per media reports, the State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Bihar have also recently issued similar notifications. These Guidelines lay down rules relating to the nature and type of service, its duration, places of work and the supervising authority. The guidelines framed by the governments of different States are largely similar in nature. They provide for various kinds of work such as cleaning, maintenance, traffic regulation, arranging books, planting trees, etc. to be carried out in public places such as government libraries, hospitals, educational institutions, public parks, old age homes, zoos, museums or any other place which the court may deem fit in a given case. The list of community service activities provided in the guidelines is not exhaustive. The duration of the community service generally ranges from one day to 31 days, or 40 hours to 240 hours. Other States are also keen on framing the required guidelines on a similar pattern in the near future.

To gain a clear understanding of the type of community service, nature of work that may be assigned, duration, places of work and its monitoring by a supervising authority, reference may be made to the community service Guidelines notified by the State of U.P.²¹ on 7 January 2026, being the most recent development on the subject. These Guidelines provide the details in the following tabular format:

Sl. No.	Community services	Place/office of service	Authorising officer	Monitoring authority	Duration of community service
1.	Cleaning/maintenance of wards and peripherals.	Government hospitals/government dispensaries.	Resident Medical Officer (RMO)/Dean or designated officer.	District Probation Officer or any other appointed or designated officer by the State Government for the purpose.	One day to thirty-one days or forty hours to two hundred and forty hours.
2.	Casualty/OP management.	Government hospital.	RMO/Dean or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
3.	Trolley/movement assistance.	Government hospital.	RMO/Dean or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
4.	Any other duties identified by RMO/Dean which requires more special/medical knowledge.	Government hospital.	RMO/Dean or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
5.	Cleaning/maintenance of study area, stock area, and peripherals.	District/Taluka Office/Legal Aid Clinics/any government. library.	Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA)/Librarian/In-charge Officer.	-do-	-do-
6.	Arranging of books/listing of books or any clerical assistance of binding.	DLSA Office District/Tehsil/Sub-Division Office/any government library.	Secretary, DLSA/Librarian/in-charge officer.	-do-	-do-
7.	Cleaning of classrooms, library, labs, grounds and peripherals.	Government educational institutions.	HM/principal or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
8.	Cleaning/maintenance along with Municipal/Corporation cleaning staff.	Corporation/Municipality/Panchayat.	Respective Commissioner/Block Development Officer (BDO) or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
9.	Removal of weeds from roadsides.	Corporation/Municipality/Panchayat.	Respective Commissioner/BDO or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
10.	Any cleaning or maintenance of public buildings.	Public offices.	Officers concerned.	-do-	-do-
11.	Traffic regulation, crowd regulation, premises/station cleaning, common areas maintenance.	Police station.	Station House Officer (SHO)/designated officer.	-do-	-do-
12.	Cleaning/maintenance.	Public parks/space and river/canal/reservoir/beach of Corporation/Municipality/Panchayat.	Respective Commissioner/BDO/designated officer.	-do-	-do-
13.	Cleaning/maintenance.	Old age homes/mental health institutes/hostels/Social Welfare Department buildings.	Warden/in-charge officer or designated officer.	-do-	-do-
14.	Tree planting, watering, weed removal and maintenance work.	Forest Department	Ranger/in-charge officer/designated officer.	-do-	-do-
15.	Cleaning/maintenance or clerical assistance.	Zoo/museums	Curator/in-charge officer/designated officer.	-do-	-do-
16.	Any other duty as part of community service which the Court deems fit in the given case.	Department concerned.	Officer concerned.	-do-	-do-

Conclusion

The inclusion of community service as a sentencing option under the BNS signifies a transformative shift towards a more humane, rehabilitative, and community-focused justice system. Unlike traditional imprisonment, community service empower offenders to make positive contributions to society, thereby facilitating reintegration while reducing the stigma of incarceration.

Moreover, for community service to function as a credible sentencing alternative, it is imperative to foster public awareness and acceptance so as to dispel prevailing misconceptions surrounding non-custodial sentences. Equally important is the need for courts to take into account the skills, aptitude, and capabilities of the offender while determining the nature of community service to be imposed, thereby ensuring that the punishment serves the twin objectives of utility and proportionality.

In sum, community service — when properly regulated and thoughtfully applied — has the potential to emerge as a cornerstone of India’s evolving reform-oriented sentencing jurisprudence.