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 penalized 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 Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978 proposed inserting Section 74A 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 Report, 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.²

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.³

Prior to the enactment of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the only statutory provision explicitly recognising community service in India was Section 18(1)(c) of the 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. Court ordered community service is inherently non-voluntary, constituting a bounded legal obligation to perform assigned labor 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The state of Indian correctional facilities presents a significant challenge. As per the NCRB report (as of December 31, 2023), the country held 5,30,333 prisoners, with a notable 73.5% classified as undertrial prisoners (UTPs), while convicts accounted for 25.6%. 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%. This situation is aggravated by an alarmingly high occupancy rate of 120.8% at the national level, indicating severe institutional overcrowding.⁴ Recognizing 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 Punjab⁵ 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 Uttar Pradesh⁶ the court emphasized that justice must prioritize 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, High Courts and the Supreme Court frequently exercised discretion by making community service a condition for granting relief e.g., when quashing charge-sheets or granting bail. Some of the judicial instances are discussed below -

The Supreme Court in Solemen SK v. State of West Bengal [SLP (Crl.) No. 709/2019, order dated 12.07.2019] 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 Gujarat [W.P. (Crl.) 116/2022] 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 @ Umer v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [Crl. M.C. 674/2021, decided on 21.03.2021], the Delhi High Court directed a 21-year-old accused to perform one month of community service at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib while quashing the FIR on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute.

In Manoj Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.[W.P. (Crl.) 116/2022] 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 Singh & Ors. [Misc. Criminal Case No. 43706 of 2023], 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 Dr. Ekta Singh [Criminal Contempt Petition No. 8 of 2023; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 378], 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 Madhya Pradesh [Misc. Criminal Case No. 48759 of 2023; 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 29], 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The term “Community Service” is defined in the explanation to section 23 BNSS. The explanation states:

“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 corresponding section 4 (of BNS) of section 53 of the repealed IPC. 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) of the BNS, “Community Service” is recognized 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 of 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) of the BNS, as indicated by the conjunction “or” in these provisions. Interestingly, under Section 303(2) of the 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 offense.

Legal Implications of Default in Performing Community Service: Ambiguities in Section 8 of the 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 of the BNS outlines the procedure for the liability of a convict in default of community service. 

The 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 preemptively 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 ₹5,000. 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.

Challenges and measures for effective Implementation

The effective implementation of community service as an alternative form of punishment presents several institutional and procedural challenges, particularly in the absence of clear legislative guidelines. Key concerns relate to the lack of defined parameters regarding the nature of permissible work, the maximum duration of community service, and the types of institutions in which such service may be performed.

For community service to operate as a credible sentencing alternative, it is essential to build public awareness and acceptance so as to dispel prevailing misconceptions. Equally important is the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring mechanism to ensure the integrity of the process. This would require the appointment of a designated monitoring officer tasked with supervision and compliance oversight.

Moreover, there is a pressing need to consider the skills and capabilities of the offender in determining the nature of the community service, thereby ensuring both utility and proportionality. Ultimately, the legislature must enact specific statutory rules defining the contours of community service, including the nature of permissible tasks, duration limits, consent requirements, consequences of non-compliance, and supervisory protocols to prevent misuse and secure effective enforcement.

Until such legislative clarity is achieved, courts must continue to rely upon the guidance available through various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, as discussed hereinbefore.

The inclusion of community service as a sentencing option under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 signifies a transformative shift towards a more humane, rehabilitative, and community-focused justice system. Unlike traditional imprisonment, community service empowers offenders to make positive contributions to society, thereby facilitating reintegration while reducing the stigma of incarceration.

Moreover, widespread adoption of community service orders can help reduce prison overcrowding and alleviate financial pressures on the state. Most importantly, it minimizes the social exclusion often associated with imprisonment, thereby facilitating the offender's swift reintegration into mainstream society.

In sum, community service—properly regulated and thoughtfully applied—has the potential to become a cornerstone of India's emerging reform-oriented sentencing jurisprudence.

I am grateful to my wife, Mrs. Farha Naaz for her assistance in providing preliminary research inputs and for insightful discussions on the subject.

Author is a judge in the U.P. Judicial Service. Views are personal.

References: 

1. Law Commission of India, “156th Report on the Indian Penal Code”, Vol. I (1997)

2. Law Commission of India, “156th Report on the Indian Penal Code”, Vol. I (1997)

3. Ministry of Home Affairs, Report of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (March 2003).

4. NCRB, MHA, Government of India, “Prison Statistics India” (2023)

5. AIR 1978 SC 1542

6. AIR 1978 SC 527