Community Service as Punishment — New Provision in BNS

In India, community service became a punishment on 1 July 2024, as clause (f) of Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Only six offences carry it — BNS Sections 202, 209, 226, 303(2) (proviso), 355 and 356(2) — and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) defines it as unpaid work benefiting the community.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) had no such punishment, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) gave Magistrates no power to impose it. This guide sets out every provision that mentions community service, what each offence requires, who can impose it, what happens on default, and the Supreme Court judgments that bear on it. The offences themselves are covered on the linked section pages for theft and defamation.

At a glance

A search of the enacted Gazette text of both Sanhitas for "community" returns no other punishment provision.

What changed

• New — BNS Section 4 lists six punishments, "(a) Death; (b) Imprisonment for life; (c) Imprisonment … (d) Forfeiture of property; (e) Fine; (f) Community Service." IPC Section 53 listed five (clause "Thirdly", penal servitude, was omitted in 1949).
• New — the Explanation to BNSS Section 23 defines community service; neither the IPC nor the CrPC contained a definition.
• Expanded — BNSS Section 23(2)–(3) add community service to the sentences a Magistrate of the first or second class may pass, and raise the fine ceilings from ₹10,000 and ₹5,000 (CrPC s.29, as printed) to ₹50,000 and ₹10,000.
• Expanded — BNS Section 8(4) extends the default-imprisonment rule, which IPC Section 66 applied to fines, to "default of community service". Section 8(5) applies the scale to offences "punishable with fine or community service"; IPC Section 67 applied its scale (two months up to ₹50, four months up to ₹100, six months otherwise) to offences punishable "with fine only".
• New — the proviso to BNS Section 303(2), under which community service is the only punishment prescribed for qualifying first-time petty theft.
• Expanded — community service is added as an alternative in Sections 202, 209 (first limb), 355 and 356(2), and prescribed in the new Section 226.
• Omitted — IPC Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) has no general counterpart; only the narrow Section 226 survives.

Statutory text (relevant extracts)

"Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service." — BNS s.303(2), proviso (as enacted)

"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." — BNSS s.23, Explanation

"(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." — BNS s.8(4)

The definition has three elements: the work is ordered by a Court, it is performed by "a convict" (not an accused awaiting trial), and it is unpaid and must benefit the community. The Explanation says nothing about the kind of work, the number of hours, its duration, or who supervises it.

How it works — the six offences

Theft under Section 303(2): the only case where community service is prescribed alone

The proviso has three conditions, all of which must be met:

1. Value: "the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees".
2. First conviction: "a person is convicted for the first time".
3. Restitution: "return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property".

When all three are met, the person "shall be punished with community service"; no term of imprisonment or fine is prescribed for that case. If any condition fails, the main paragraph applies: imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both, and on a second or subsequent conviction rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and up to five years, and fine. The First Schedule gives the proviso case its own entry — non-cognizable, bailable, triable by any Magistrate — whereas the CrPC First Schedule listed theft under IPC Section 379 as cognizable and non-bailable without any value-based entry.

Worked example. A takes a mobile phone worth ₹3,000 from a shop counter. He has no prior conviction. Before sentence he returns the phone to the shopkeeper. On conviction under Section 303(2), all three conditions of the proviso are met, and the text says he "shall be punished with community service". Had the phone been worth ₹6,000, or had A been convicted of theft before, the proviso would not apply.

The proviso's drafting is irregular — it uses "shall" twice and has no subject for the first verb — and it does not say at what stage the restitution must take place. Those questions are not answered by the words, and no Supreme Court judgment construing the proviso was read for this guide. See the theft section page.

Section 226: attempt to commit suicide, narrowed

IPC Section 309 punished whoever "attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence" with simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. BNS Section 226 punishes only whoever "attempts to commit suicide with the intent to compel or restrain any public servant from discharging his official duty". The two ingredients are the attempt and that specific intent; without the intent, no BNS offence is made out on the text. The offence is non-cognizable and bailable (IPC Section 309 was cognizable and bailable). See attempt to commit suicide: Section 309 IPC dropped, Section 226 BNS.

Section 209: non-appearance after a proclamation

Section 209 has two limbs. A person who "fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 84" of the BNSS may be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both, "or with community service". Where a declaration under Section 84(4) BNSS has pronounced him a proclaimed offender, the punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine, and community service is not an option. IPC Section 174A had the same two limbs by reference to Section 82 CrPC. See proclaimed offenders and trial in absentia.

Sections 202, 355 and 356(2)

• Section 202 (was IPC s.168): a public servant "legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade" who engages in trade. Punishment unchanged except for the added community-service option.
• Section 355 (was IPC s.510): appearing intoxicated in a public place, or a place where it is a trespass to enter, and causing annoyance to any person. The maximum fine rises from ten rupees to one thousand rupees.
• Section 356(2) (was IPC s.500): "Whoever defames another". Community service is not available for printing or engraving defamatory matter (s.356(3)) or selling it (s.356(4)), which remain simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both. See the defamation section page.

Who can impose it, and what happens on default

A Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence "of community service" under Section 23(2) BNSS, and a Magistrate of the second class under Section 23(3). A Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass "any sentence authorised by law" except death, life imprisonment or a term exceeding seven years (s.23(1)), and a Sessions Judge "any sentence authorised by law" (s.22(2)); on a reading, both therefore include community service where the offence provides for it.

On default, Section 8(4) BNS allows imprisonment "of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced". Section 8(5) then provides that "if the offence is punishable with fine or community service", default imprisonment "shall be simple" and may not exceed:

• two months when the fine does not exceed ₹5,000;
• four months when the fine does not exceed ₹10,000;
• one year in any other case.

The scale is keyed to the amount of a fine. Where community service alone is imposed (as under the Section 303(2) proviso), the text does not say which limb governs, and Section 8(6), which ends default imprisonment on payment of a fine, has no counterpart for completing the work.

What this means in practice

• For the accused in a petty-theft case: the proviso turns on restitution. Returning the property or its value, and establishing that there is no earlier conviction, are the two things within the accused's control.
• For defence counsel: in the five alternative-punishment offences, community service can be argued as the proportionate sentence; ask the Court to fix the nature, duration and supervising authority of the work in the order itself, since the statute does not.
• For the prosecutor: in a Section 226 case, the prosecution must prove the intent to compel or restrain a public servant; in a Section 209 case, check whether a Section 84(4) declaration has been made, because it removes the community-service option.
• For the Court: the default term under Section 8(4)–(5) should be fixed in the sentence, and the order should identify the work and who reports on its completion.
• For the complainant or shop owner: restoration of the stolen property is a condition of the Section 303(2) proviso, so recovery is built into the sentencing route.

Judgments that still matter

State Tr. P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, [2012] 12 S.C.R. 881 (2012 INSC 320), decided 3 August 2012. Restoring a conviction under IPC Section 304 Part II for a drunken-driving collision that killed six people, the two-judge bench (Deepak Verma and K.S. Radhakrishnan JJ.) maintained the two-year sentence already undergone and, by its common order (para 4(2)), directed the accused to "do community service for two years" arranged by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, with simple imprisonment for two years in default. K.S. Radhakrishnan J. observed that "serving the society actually is not a punishment in the real sense where the convicts pay back to the community which he owes" (para 60). Why it matters now: the order pre-dates any statutory community-service punishment; it shows the elements the BNSS now leaves to the Court — the work, the duration, a supervising body and a default term.

Aparna Bhat & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [2021] 4 S.C.R. 479 (2021 INSC 192), decided 18 March 2021. A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat JJ. (judgment by Bhat J.) set aside bail conditions requiring the accused in a sexual-offence case to have a rakhi tied by the complainant (para 51), holding that the offence is "not a minor transgression that can be remedied by way of an apology, rendering community service, tying a rakhi or presenting a gift to the survivor" (para 33). Why it matters now: the BNSS Explanation confines community service to work ordered of "a convict" as punishment; on a reading of the definition together with this judgment, it is not a condition to be attached to bail.

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [2026] 4 S.C.R. 565 (2026 INSC 355), decided 10 April 2026. J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar JJ. (judgment by Maheshwari J.) compared IPC Section 53 with BNS Section 4 and held that "Section 53 of IPC has been adopted as it is in Section 4 of BNS while also adding another punishment in nature of community service. This is … indicative of the paradigm shift in the legislative intent from deterrence to reformation" (para 23). The Court held that "punishment" in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is to be construed by the enumeration in IPC Section 53 and BNS Section 4, so that release on probation is available to an offender sentenced only to a fine (paras 24–25). Why it matters now: it is the Supreme Court's own reading of Section 4(f) as a reformative addition.

Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 697 (1996 INSC 418), decided 21 March 1996. A five-judge Constitution Bench (judgment of the Court by J.S. Verma J.) held that IPC Section 309 did not violate Article 21 or Article 14, overruling P. Rathinam on Article 21: "there is no ground to hold that Section 309, IPC is constitutionally invalid". It added that the provision's severity "is mitigated by the wide discretion in the matter of sentencing". The reported text has no paragraph numbers; the headnote places the Article 21 holding at p.720. Why it matters now: Parliament has since chosen not to re-enact a general attempted-suicide offence; Section 226 BNS, with community service as one option, is what remains.

Which law applies to your case

For an offence committed before 1 July 2024, BNS Section 358(2) provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect "any penalty, or punishment incurred", which "may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed". The IPC listed no community service in Section 53, so on a reading of that text the IPC's own scale governs such an offence and community service is not among the options. Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall "be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence". For offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, the six BNS provisions apply as enacted. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which offences carry community service under the BNS?

Six offence provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prescribe community service: Sections 202 (public servant unlawfully engaging in trade), 209 (non-appearance in response to a proclamation, first limb only), 226 (attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain a public servant), 303(2) proviso (theft under five thousand rupees on a first conviction with restitution), 355 (misconduct in public by a drunken person) and 356(2) (defamation). The only other references are Section 4(f) and Section 8(4)-(5).

Is community service mandatory for petty theft under Section 303(2) BNS?

The proviso to Section 303(2) BNS says that where the stolen property is worth less than five thousand rupees and the person is convicted for the first time, he shall, upon return of the value of the property or restoration of the stolen property, be punished with community service. It prescribes no imprisonment or fine for that case. If any condition is missing, the ordinary punishment of up to three years, or fine, or both, applies.

Can a court order community service together with imprisonment?

Not under the text of the five offences that list it as an option. Sections 202, 209, 226, 355 and 356(2) BNS each place community service after 'or', as an alternative to imprisonment, fine or both. The proviso to Section 303(2) prescribes community service alone.

What kind of work counts as community service?

The Explanation to Section 23 BNSS defines community service as work the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he is not entitled to any remuneration. Neither the BNSS nor the BNS specifies the kind of work, its duration or who supervises it.

What happens if a convict does not perform community service?

Section 8(4) BNS allows the Court to impose imprisonment in default of community service, of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced. Under Section 8(5), where the offence is punishable with fine or community service, that imprisonment must be simple and may not exceed two months, four months or one year, depending on whether the fine is up to five thousand rupees, up to ten thousand rupees, or more.

Which Magistrates can sentence a person to community service?

Section 23(2) BNSS allows a Magistrate of the first class to pass a sentence of up to three years' imprisonment, a fine of up to fifty thousand rupees, both, or community service. Section 23(3) gives a Magistrate of the second class up to one year, a fine of up to ten thousand rupees, both, or community service. A Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 23(1) may pass any sentence authorised by law except death, life imprisonment or a term exceeding seven years.

Is attempted suicide still an offence under the BNS?

The BNS has no general offence corresponding to Section 309 IPC. Section 226 BNS punishes only an attempt to commit suicide made with the intent to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging his official duty, with simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service.

Can community service be imposed for an offence committed before 1 July 2024?

Section 358(2) BNS provides that a penalty or punishment incurred under the repealed IPC may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed, and the IPC listed no community service among its punishments in Section 53. On a reading of that text, an offence committed before 1 July 2024 is punished under the IPC's own scale. Article 20(1) of the Constitution separately bars a penalty greater than the one in force when the offence was committed.

Related

• Sections 378-382 IPC vs Sections 303-307 BNS: theft
• Sections 499-502 IPC vs Section 356 BNS: defamation
• Attempt to commit suicide: Section 309 IPC dropped, Section 226 BNS
• Proclaimed offenders and trial in absentia: BNSS 84 and 356 vs CrPC 82
• Offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies
• Section 82 CrPC vs Section 84 BNSS — Proclamation and Attachment (CrPC 82-86)
• Section 53 IPC vs Section 4 BNS — Punishments
• Sections 166, 168–171 IPC vs Sections 198, 202–205 BNS — Public Servant Disobeying Law, Unlawful Trade and Purchase, and Personating a Public Servant
• Sections 201–211 IPC vs Sections 238–248 BNS — Offences Against Public Justice
• Section 510 IPC vs Section 355 BNS — Misconduct in Public by a Drunken Person
• Sections 29–31 CrPC vs Sections 23–25 BNSS — Sentencing Powers of Magistrates and Sentences for Several Offences at One Trial
• Sections 349–358 IPC vs Sections 128–136 BNS — Assault and Criminal Force

Sources

• Acts and sections read: BNS 2023 ss.4, 8, 202, 209, 226, 303, 355, 356, 358 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250883, searched in full for "community"); BNSS 2023 ss.22, 23 and the First Schedule entries for BNS ss.202, 209, 226, 303(2), 355 and 356(2) (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); IPC 1860 ss.53, 66, 67, 168, 174A, 309, 379, 500, 510; CrPC 1973 s.29 and the First Schedule entries for IPC ss.309 and 379 (original India Code texts); Constitution of India Art. 20(1).
• Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012_12_881_946_EN.md); Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021_4_479_510_EN.md); Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve v. State of Maharashtra (2026_4_565_592_EN.md); Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996_3_697_720_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.