Indian criminal jurisprudence has undergone a gradual yet profound transformation from being primarily retributive and deterrent in nature to embracing reformative and restorative philosophies. Earlier, punishment in the Indian legal system was aimed at inflicting suffering and deterring potential offenders. However, modern jurisprudence recognizes that the true purpose of criminal law is not only to penalize but also to reform the wrongdoer and restore societal harmony. This shift reflects the reformative theory of punishment, which views offenders as individuals capable of change. Against this backdrop, community service has emerged as a progressive, humane, and practical alternative to imprisonment, balancing accountability with rehabilitation. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) marks a milestone in this evolution by formally recognizing community service as a distinct form of punishment for the first time in India. This legislative reform aligns with the constitutional vision of justice under Article 21, which upholds life and liberty with dignity, and mirrors the ideals of modern criminal jurisprudence focusing on behavioural correction, social reintegration, and moral regeneration.
Community service as a sanction compels offenders to perform unpaid, socially beneficial work, thereby allowing them to make amends to the community they have wronged. The philosophy underlying it draws heavily from restorative justice, which emphasizes repairing the harm caused by crime rather than merely punishing the offender. It also embodies the reformative theory, which treats punishment as a means of re-education rather than retaliation. Through this process, offenders learn empathy, discipline, and civic responsibility while society benefits from their contribution. The BNS 2023 codifies this spirit by prescribing community service for certain minor and non-violent offences such as public nuisance, petty theft, defamation, or acts of misconduct. This ensures proportionality in punishment a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence by reserving imprisonment for serious offences and encouraging social service for lesser ones. It also addresses the chronic problem of prison overcrowding and recognizes that short-term incarceration often does little to reform first-time or minor offenders.
Even before its statutory inclusion, Indian courts had begun integrating community service within their sentencing framework as a reflection of reformative justice. In Parvez Jilani Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2015), the Bombay High Court directed the accused to serve at B.A.R.C. Hospital, reasoning that helping others could instill moral sensitivity. Similarly, in Sunita Gandharva v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, invoking Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, endorsed community service as an innovative condition for bail to promote accountability and social responsibility. The Delhi High Court, in Manoj Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022), mandated that the accused perform weekend community service at a hospital, viewing it as a constructive avenue for behavioural correction. These judgments illustrate how the judiciary, guided by reformative criminal jurisprudence, began blending punishment with opportunities for rehabilitation well before legislative recognition.
A recent and impactful example of this evolving approach is seen in Abhishek Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024). The accused, a first-year BBA student, was arrested for stalking, harassing, and sending obscene messages to a girl through WhatsApp offences punishable under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act. During his bail plea, he cited academic loss and expressed remorse, with his parents assuring the court of their supervision. Recognizing his youth and potential for reformation, Justice Anand Pathak of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted temporary bail on the condition that he perform community service at the District Hospital, Bhopal, every weekend from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The judge emphasized that the aim of justice is not vengeance but transformation that young offenders must be given a chance to correct their course and reintegrate into society. The court restricted his activities to assisting patients under supervision, ensuring that the punishment fostered empathy and social awareness. This creative judicial direction turned punishment into a process of moral education and personal reform rather than humiliation or isolation.
Such judicial innovations and legislative developments signify a paradigm shift in Indian criminal jurisprudence from a punitive model to one centered on correction and restoration. By incorporating community service, the system acknowledges that justice must heal the offender, protect the victim, and restore community balance. Similar to global practices in the United Kingdom and the United States, where community-based sentences have reduced recidivism and promoted reintegration, India’s move toward community service represents a maturing vision of justice one that corrects rather than condemns, reforms rather than retaliates, and aspires to create a society where law serves not only to punish but to heal.