Introduction
The Indian criminal justice system, particularly its prison infrastructure, has increasingly come under the spotlight for its deficiencies and rights-based failures. Across various reports,¹ prisons have been portrayed not merely as sites of confinement but as spaces where constitutional safeguards are routinely undermined. From overcrowding and violence amongst inmates to inadequate healthcare and sanitation, the conditions prevailing in many Indian jails reflect a deeper crisis of governance.¹

Among the most disturbing aspects of this crisis is the prevalence of violence inflicted upon inmates by prison authorities as well as fellow prisoners. Such abuse is not incidental but alarmingly routine, reflecting a culture of impunity and institutional neglect. Despite periodic calls for reform, Indian prisons remain chronically overcrowded, disproportionately housing individuals from marginalized and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of these undertrial prisoners endure prolonged incarceration, often languishing for years behind bars.

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its report titled “Prison Conditions, Infrastructure and Reforms” dated 21 September 2023 underscored a range of structural and operational concerns. These included overcrowding, the treatment of young offenders and women prisoners, shortage of prison staff, inadequate food quality, insufficient budgetary allocations, and the neglect of transgender inmates.³

While the authors fully acknowledges the systemic issues plaguing India’s prison infrastructure, the central emphasis here is on advocating community service as a possible alternative form of punishment for minor offences. The authors argue that introducing community service in lieu of incarceration for petty crimes could significantly mitigate many of these entrenched problems by reducing prison populations, curbing custodial abuse, and promoting rehabilitative justice. Although there is currently no formal framework or set of guidelines governing community service as a penal sanction, the authors propose a series of suggestions that could inform the development of such a framework.

Systemic Failure and the Need for Alternatives
The persistence of these systemic failures within the prison framework signals the impending breakdown of an already fragile institution. In light of this, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the continued reliance on custodial sentencing and to explore the viability of non-custodial alternatives that can alleviate the burden on the prison system.

Community sentencing, or community service, forms part of a broader spectrum of non-custodial measures. It refers to a structured form of punishment wherein offenders are required to perform unpaid work for a fixed number of hours, contributing to socially beneficial tasks such as cleaning, gardening, painting, or teaching. These assignments are typically tailored to the offender’s skills and are intended for first-time convicts found guilty of minor offences, serving as a substitute for short-term imprisonment.⁴

Grounded in restorative and rehabilitative justice principles, community sentencing offers a constructive alternative by holding offenders directly accountable for the harm caused to society, while simultaneously engaging them in socially beneficial work. By diverting first-time and low-risk offenders from custodial settings, it helps decongest overcrowded prisons and shields them from exposure to hardened criminals.

Community sentencing has been successfully implemented across many jurisdictions as a means to address longstanding issues within prison systems. These models have demonstrated the potential of non-custodial sanctions to reduce incarceration rates, promote rehabilitation, and alleviate systemic burdens.

Previous Attempts on Community Service
The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978 (“the Bill”) marked an early legislative attempt to introduce community service as a form of punishment within India’s penal framework. Under the Bill, a new form of punishment was sought to be introduced in the form of community sentence.⁵ It provided that any offender above the age of eighteen could be directed to perform unpaid work for a specified number of hours, subject to certain conditions. Importantly, the convict’s consent was required, and the court had to be satisfied that the individual was suited to undertake the assigned work. Community service was proposed as a sentencing option for offences punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, with the prescribed range of work hours spanning from forty to one thousand.⁶

However, while analysing community service as a proposed form of punishment, the Law Commission did not endorse it, citing practical difficulties in implementation and opining that the open-air prison system is better suited for correctional purposes than community service.⁷ It is pertinent to underscore here that the law commission’s dismissal of community service due to “practical difficulties” is unconvincing. The law commission fails to articulate any cogent reasons that would render community service unworkable. This omission is particularly stark given the chronic and well-documented problems plaguing Indian prisons, severe overcrowding, underfunding, violence amongst inmates, and limited rehabilitative infrastructure. By ignoring these systemic issues, the law commission overlooks the need for non-custodial alternatives that can alleviate pressure on the prison system while promoting reintegration. Community service, when properly structured and supervised, offers a low-cost, socially constructive sentencing option that directly addresses these concerns.

With the recent enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), it has now formally recognized community service as a form of punishment under Chapter II, Section 4(f). Furthermore, under the Explanation to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), it defines 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. However, this statutory inclusion remains largely symbolic, as the Act provides no guidelines for its implementation. Against this backdrop, the present article examines how community service has been structured and implemented across various jurisdictions and proposes a model for its effective adoption within the Indian criminal justice system.

Towards a Viable Community Service Framework for India
Community service typically involves first-time petty offenders performing unpaid, supervised work. While international models offer valuable insights, they cannot be directly transplanted into the Indian context due to differing legal, social, and administrative realities. Designing an effective framework for India requires a tailored approach that considers offender eligibility based on the gravity of the offence and its prescribed punishment, clearly defines the nature and duration of the work, establishes robust supervision mechanisms such as probation officers or local authorities, and sets out consequences for non-performance. Community service has helped other countries reduce prison overcrowding and promote offender reintegration through supervised engagement. Given these proven benefits, India should consider expanding and institutionalizing community service within its penal framework, adapting it to local realities to ensure fairness and effectiveness.

Nature and Duration of the Work
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), India has taken a significant step by formally recognizing community service as a form of punishment for certain offences.⁸ This marks a progressive shift in penal philosophy, moving away from custodial norms towards restorative and non-custodial alternatives. However, despite this statutory recognition, the BNS 2023 currently does not provide a structured framework or guidelines for implementing community service as a sentencing option. There is no clarity on the duration, nature of work, supervisory mechanisms, or safeguards to ensure fairness and effectiveness. Moreover, community service should be extended to a wider range of non-violent offences where no bodily harm is caused, thereby broadening its rehabilitative reach and reducing unnecessary incarceration.

To address this gap, India may consider developing a structured method for assessing the duration and content of community service orders. Additionally, to incentivize compliance and performance, a provision for sentence reduction could be introduced for offenders who demonstrate diligence and sincerity in completing their assigned work.

Supervision
Effective supervision is essential to ensure compliance with community service orders and prevent misuse. Each offender should be assigned a community service supervisor/probation officer, preferably a law enforcement officer, responsible for tracking progress and submitting a final compliance report to the sentencing court. Further, electronic tagging systems, as used in New Zealand and the UK, may be employed to monitor attendance and location.⁹

Non - Performance of the community sentence
To uphold the integrity of community service orders, breaches must be addressed firmly. New Zealand’s model requiring offenders to repeat their service hours in cases of unsatisfactory performance offers a practical deterrent against casual compliance and may be adopted in India. Minor infractions could be managed through warnings or fines, while more serious or repeated violations may warrant curfew restrictions or an extension of service hours, as practiced in the United Kingdom.¹⁰ These layered responses would reinforce accountability and ensure that community sentencing is taken seriously.

Judiciary Backs Community Service
Recently, Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur emphasized the need to explore alternatives to incarceration as a means of addressing systemic issues in India’s penal system. While speaking on the subject, he cited the open prison facility in Sanganer, Rajasthan, as a compelling example of successful reintegration. Notably, the prison includes a school for the children of inmates, reflecting a rehabilitative approach that prioritizes dignity and social inclusion.¹¹

In the course of hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013, titled In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta suggested that individuals sentenced to short terms of imprisonment specifically six months to one year could be assigned social service duties instead of being confined in overcrowded jails. This observation was prompted by alarming data presented by amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal, which revealed that several prisons were operating at 150% capacity, with severe shortages in staff and infrastructure.¹²

Furthering this reform-oriented trajectory, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, in its order dated 19 November 2024 in the same writ petition, invoked Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court directed jail authorities to proactively identify undertrial prisoners who may be eligible for release under this provision, which limits the maximum period of detention for undertrial.

Adding to this discourse, former Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit recently raised concerns regarding the lack of legislative clarity in prescribing community service as an alternative to imprisonment or fine. He highlighted the absence of statutory guidelines on the duration, nature, supervision, and consequences of non-performance of community service sentences. In light of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 formally recognizing community service as a form of punishment, Justice Lalit underscored the urgent need for a structured framework to ensure its consistent and effective application.¹³

Taken together, these judicial interventions reflect a clear inclination toward reducing overcrowding and promoting humane alternatives to incarceration. Whether through community service, the operationalization of Section 479 BNSS,¹⁴ or the expansion of open prison models, the judiciary is actively shaping a more rehabilitative and rights-based approach to criminal justice in India.

Conclusion
The statutory recognition of community service under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 signals a pivotal shift toward rehabilitative justice. Yet, without a clear set of guidelines, its potential remains unrealized. Drawing from international models and judicial endorsements, India must now institutionalize community service through structured guidelines that define eligibility, supervision, duration, and consequences of non-compliance. Doing so will not only ease the burden on overcrowded prisons but also foster a more humane and restorative criminal justice system.

By - C. George Thomas and Gurkaranbir Singh