Community Service: Justice Served or Justice Sold Out?

INTRODUCTION

What is the purpose of law, if not to create order in our chaos? Law is our basic fundamental principle to live or life, anytime there is any issue, we ask the law for help. Like a guardian, it is always there to help us, having all the answers to our questions, as if it expects us to come to it whenever we face any issue. But how does it help when we present our conflicts? Like the weather, the answer shifts with the season, the place, the hour. For a heinous crime, there are imprisonment, a fine or both. For a slightly lesser crime, it is life imprisonment/imprisonment up to 10 years/7 years, and a fine. For non-cognizable crime, imprisonment can vary from 3 years, which could go up to 7 years with or without a fine. Lastly, there are crimes that are not responded to with punishment; instead, they are something that are reformative in nature and built to teach the lawbreaker not to do certain acts without an actual punishment. These involve community services; it is a kind of punishment where an individual is expected to work for the betterment of the community. It is a court-ordered punishment for petty crimes like theft, causing disturbance and annoyance to the public, or simply doing an act that, or omission of an act that was legally expected of them. It is the law’s way of saying this person can improve and deserves a second chance.

WHY DO WE NEED COMMUNITY SERVICE/OR DO WE?

Community service is a way of providing a second chance to an individual, often given to people who are expected to make a better future for themselves and the society. So then, why is there a need for community service if they can be given a stern warning instead? This reformative punishment tells us there are consequences to every action, and when there is an injury, there is a penal reaction, where the punishments are directly proportional to the crime committed.

Community service, by definition, is meant to benefit society, whether it’s cleaning public spaces, assisting NGOs, or contributing to social welfare. But when misused, it becomes a mockery of justice. In some cases, it serves not as a tool for reform, but as a shield protecting those backed by the iron hand behind the curtain. Light sentences are handed down not out of compassion, but under coercion, political pressure, or even if they have an interest in the subject matter or the parties. Sometimes, it’s not justice being served, it’s power being flexed, simply because it can be.

While community service offers certain advantages, such as reducing prison overcrowding, improving the convicted person’s lifestyle, and exposing them to positive aspects of life, it must be approached carefully. It allows individuals to witness how underprivileged communities live with dignity and integrity, often inspiring them to adopt a more grounded and responsible lifestyle. Psychologically, this exposure can help them reflect on their own choices and behaviour. However, community service as a lighter punishment should only be considered when the accused shows genuine remorse, not just in court or in front of the judge, but in their everyday actions. One of the main concerns is that such lenient punishments may fail to convey the seriousness of the crime. When offenders do not fully realise the impact of their actions, it increases the chances of recidivism, allowing them to move on as if nothing ever happened. This poses an immense threat to society and a legal lacuna in the legal system.

WHEN ARE THEY APPLIED – WHAT DOES IT IMPLY?

Under the newly formed and renowned Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), hereinafter the BNS, states some acts which provide an alternative non-traditional punishment, community service. Under section

Section 202: Public Servant Engaging in Trade: A breach of public trust, punished with community service, may remind officials of their duties, but if the message isn’t strong, it risks normalising unethical side-deals in power.

Section 209: Absconding from Arrest (via BNSS Sec 84): If a person evades arrest and ends up doing community work instead of facing real accountability, it weakens the system’s authority. Reform should not look like a reward.

Section 226: Attempted Suicide to Obstruct Duty: When someone uses self-harm to block official action, community service can be a humane response. But if intent to manipulate is ignored, it opens dangerous ground.

Section 303(2): Theft Under ₹5000: For low-value thefts, community service would prove as a great alternative over jail. But repeat offenders might treat it as a free pass, blurring the line between petty and pattern.

Section 355: Public Indecency Under Intoxication: One drunk mistake doesn’t need a criminal record. But certain laws must be strict so any other possible offender may be deterred from making the same mistake.

Section 356: Defamation: Defaming someone and walking away with just community work might feel light, but making the offender contribute to the community they harmed can hit where it matters. Still, for serious reputational damage, it may not be enough.

CONCLUSION

Though it is a newer established concept in India as compared to other countries, it has been proven to show a positive outcome when used in lower severity crimes. Community service is a reformative punishment designed to change the offender’s mindset. Community service may seem like a progressive step, offering offenders a chance to reform, but it comes at the cost of victims’ rights. When someone who has endured the consequences of a crime sees the offender avoid jail through social work, the fairness of the system becomes questionable. The rights of the victim are suppressed. Is it truly a fair way of changing the future of the nation, or just being unfair to the one who can’t afford to question the legal system?

William Blackstone said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape” than that one innocent suffer.’ On this very line is based our constitution, which, although may seem correct from the perspective of the accused who may be wrongly held accountable, but what happens to the life of the victim and his family, whose life has been directly affected by the offender. Would community service still seem a better choice of punishment then?

Our Constitution under Article 21 and section 326 under BNSS (Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita) and victim rights jurisprudence in Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka demand a balance. Community service may sound like reform, but unless victims feel heard and compensated, it risks becoming an inequitable shortcut in the name of justice.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India