TL;DR: Section 4(f) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita lists community service as a punishment for the first time in an Indian criminal code, but the BNS itself never defines what the term means. The working definition sits in the Explanation to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: unpaid work ordered by a court that benefits the community, carrying no remuneration. Six BNS offences carry it, and the Act is silent on who supervises the work, in what form, and how compliance is tracked, a gap at least one High Court has now stepped in to fill by direction rather than statute.

On this page

What Section 4 of the BNS actually says

Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, lists the punishments available under the code. There are six: death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment (rigorous or simple), forfeiture of property, fine, and, at clause (f), community service. Before 1 July 2024 the Indian Penal Code recognised five forms of punishment under its own Section 53. Community service did not appear on that list. The BNS gazette notification, published by the Ministry of Home Affairs, adds it as a sixth category without qualification or cross-reference in Section 4 itself.

That is the entire text of Section 4 on the point. It names community service as a punishment. It does not say what community service consists of, who orders it performed, who supervises it, or what happens if the convict refuses. Those questions have to be answered from elsewhere in the two codes, and, as this piece sets out, some of them are not answered at all.

Section 4 works alongside Section 8 of the BNS, which governs what happens when an offender defaults on a fine or on community service. Section 8(5) provides that where an offence is punishable with fine or community service, the imprisonment a court imposes in default “shall be simple”, capped at two months where the fine prescribed for the offence does not exceed Rs 5,000, four months where it does not exceed Rs 10,000, and one year in any other case. That single sub-section is the closest the BNS comes to describing the mechanics of community service as a sentence, and even it is framed around fine defaults rather than community service defaults on its own terms.

Two verifiable facts anchor everything that follows. First, community service applies to exactly six BNS offences, not generally across the code. Second, the only statutory definition of the term appears not in the BNS but in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the companion procedure code, tucked into an Explanation to a section about which class of magistrate can pass which sentence.

The contrast with the code’s more serious new additions is worth noting. Offences the BNS created or restructured for graver conduct, such as organised crime under Section 111 and the mob lynching provision, carry only imprisonment and fine, sometimes running to life imprisonment or death. Community service sits at the opposite end of the sentencing scale. For the third code in the trio, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which replaced the Evidence Act and has no punishment provisions of its own, the BSA-Evidence Act section mapping is the relevant reference.

The six offences that carry community service

Community service is not a general sentencing option a trial court can reach for whenever it thinks imprisonment is too harsh. It attaches to six specific BNS provisions, each of which names community service as an alternative to a term of imprisonment or a fine. All six are also cognizable or non-cognizable offences in their own right, a classification that governs how the case reaches a magistrate in the first place, well before sentencing becomes a question.

Section 202 punishes a public servant who is legally bound not to engage in trade but does so anyway. The punishment is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both, or community service.

Section 209 punishes a person who fails to appear at the place and time specified in a proclamation issued under Section 84 of the BNSS. The punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, or community service, rising to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years plus fine once the person has been formally declared a proclaimed offender.

Section 226 punishes a person who attempts to commit suicide with intent to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging official duty. The punishment is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both, or community service.

Section 303(2), the theft provision, contains the one instance where community service is not discretionary. The general punishment for theft under Section 303(2) is imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, rising on a second or subsequent conviction to rigorous imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years plus fine. But the section carries a proviso: where the value of the stolen property is less than Rs 5,000 and the person is convicted for the first time, on return of the value of the property or restoration of the stolen property, the punishment “shall be” community service. The court has no discretion to impose imprisonment in that specific fact pattern. This is the only clause among the six where community service is mandatory rather than one option among several. Section 304, the adjoining offence of snatching, carries no community service option at all, which marks how narrowly the legislature drew the line even within a single chapter of the theft-related provisions.

Section 355 punishes misconduct in a public place by a person in a state of intoxication who causes annoyance to another. The punishment is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or fine which may extend to Rs 1,000, or both, or community service.

Section 356(2) punishes defamation. Whoever defames another is liable to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. It is the only one of the six offences with its own dedicated explainer on this blog; the full treatment of defamation law in India covers the civil remedy alongside this criminal one.

That is the full list, verified against the text of the Act as gazetted: Sections 202, 209, 226, 303(2), 355 and 356(2) of the BNS. Every other offence in the code that carries imprisonment or fine carries only imprisonment or fine. A defence counsel asked whether community service is available in a case that does not fall under one of these six sections has a short, correct answer: no.

The pattern across the six is instructive. Five of the six punish conduct that is low on the gravity scale and where the underlying imprisonment term tops out at one to three years: obstruction of process, minor public order, a compelled-appearance default, and a form of coerced self-harm. Defamation, at up to two years, sits at the upper end. The theft carve-out under Section 303(2) is different in kind: it is not about the gravity of the underlying wrong so much as a legislative decision to keep first-time, low-value, restitution-paying thieves out of the prison system altogether.

For readers working through how this whole scheme fits into the wider criminal law overhaul, the BNS-IPC section mapping sets out how these six provisions correspond, or fail to correspond, to their IPC predecessors, and the primer on the three new criminal codes covers community service as one line item among the wider set of changes that took effect on 1 July 2024.

The only definition in either code: BNSS Section 23

Nowhere in the BNS is community service defined. The definition sits in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the procedural code, in an Explanation appended to Section 23, a section whose primary function is to set out which sentences different classes of magistrate can pass.

Section 23 of the BNSS fixes sentencing limits by magistrate rank. A Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except death, life imprisonment, or a term exceeding seven years. A Magistrate of the first class may impose imprisonment not exceeding three years, or fine not exceeding Rs 50,000, or both, or community service. A Magistrate of the second class may impose imprisonment not exceeding one year, or fine not exceeding Rs 10,000, or both, or community service.

The Explanation to that section is where the definition lives: community service means 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.

That sentence does three things and no more. It confirms the work is court-ordered. It confirms the work must benefit the community. It confirms the convict is not paid. It does not say what kind of work qualifies, who assigns it, who checks that it has actually been done, what happens if the assigned work is unavailable in a given district, or how a magistrate is meant to translate a sentence of “community service” into an enforceable order with a start date, an end date and a supervising authority. The BNSS gives magistrates the power to sentence to community service in the same breath it gives them power to sentence to a fine of a stated rupee amount, but a fine order is self-executing once the money changes hands. A community service order is not.

This drafting choice is worth sitting with. The legislature had two codes to work with, a substantive code and a procedural code, and split the punishment and its definition between them: the punishment is named in the BNS, the definition is buried in a magistrate’s-jurisdiction section of the BNSS. Neither code contains an implementation chapter for community service the way, for example, the BNSS contains a detailed chapter on the recording of evidence or on bail. For a reader who wants the underlying procedural architecture that Section 23 sits inside, the BNSS-CrPC section mapping traces how the wider magistrate-powers scheme carries over from the old code.

What the Act does not say

Set against the six offences and the one-sentence definition, the silences are specific and identifiable.

No named supervising authority. Neither the BNS nor the BNSS designates a probation officer, district legal services authority, police officer, or any other functionary as the body responsible for assigning, monitoring, or certifying completion of community service. Compare this with the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which creates the office of probation officer with defined statutory duties. The BNS scheme has no equivalent.

No catalogue of qualifying work. The Explanation says the work must “benefit the community”. It gives no list, no category, and no minimum or maximum hours. A court sentencing a defendant under Section 356(2) has to invent, case by case, what counts.

No compliance or reporting mechanism. There is no statutory register, no reporting obligation to the sentencing court, and no defined consequence for partial performance short of the default provision in Section 8, which is framed around imprisonment in lieu of an unpaid fine, not around a half-completed stint of unpaid labour. Because nothing is centrally reported, the only way to find out how a given court has actually handled a community service order is to pull the reported orders themselves; a legal research tool that can search full judgment text rather than headnotes alone is the practical way to find how many benches have followed the Rajasthan High Court’s approach since March 2026.

No rule-making delegation. Several other reforms introduced by the BNSS explicitly hand implementation detail to the Central Government or State Governments by way of rules, forms, or notifications. Community service carries no such express delegation in either Act. What exists on the ground, where it exists, has come from individual High Courts and individual state administrations acting without a statutory mandate to do so, a point taken up in the next section.

This matters for a working lawyer for a simple reason: silence in a criminal statute does not resolve in the state’s favour by default. Where the Act is silent on mechanics, a court asked to sentence to community service is exercising something closer to the inherent powers a court holds under BNSS Section 528 than a codified sentencing power, and a defence counsel is entitled to press the court on exactly what is being ordered, for how long, supervised by whom, and with what consequence for non-performance, before the client consents to or is subjected to the order. The absence of a statutory floor also means there is no statutory ceiling beyond the sentencing limits already fixed by the underlying offence section itself.

Default: what happens when a convict does not perform the work

The BNS addresses default only through Section 8, and only obliquely. Section 8(4) provides that the imprisonment a 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. Section 8(5) then caps that default imprisonment where the offence is punishable with fine or community service: the default term must be simple imprisonment, and it cannot exceed two months where the fine fixed for the offence does not exceed Rs 5,000, four months where it does not exceed Rs 10,000, and one year in any other case.

Read literally, this default scheme is pegged to the fine amount prescribed for the offence, not to any quantum attached to the community service order itself, because community service carries no rupee figure. For the five offences where community service is offered as an alternative to a fine (Sections 202, 209, 226, 355 and 356(2)), that peg is workable: each of those sections also states a fine ceiling, so a court can calculate the default cap even when it sentenced to community service rather than to the fine.

Section 303(2)‘s theft proviso is different. Where the offence is a first conviction for theft of property under Rs 5,000, restored or its value returned, the punishment “shall be” community service, full stop. No fine figure is stated for that specific clause to anchor a Section 8(5) default calculation. What happens if a convict sentenced under that proviso simply does not perform the ordered work is not spelled out anywhere in the text of either Act. This is exactly the kind of conspicuous gap the earlier sections of this piece flagged: the legislature wrote community service into the code as a real punishment with a real default provision for most of its uses, then left the one instance where it is mandatory, and where the convict has no fine alternative to fall back on, without a matching default rule.

A defence lawyer whose client is sentenced under the Section 303(2) proviso should treat this as unresolved law, not as a settled point in the client’s favour or against it. Until an appellate court speaks to it directly, the safest working assumption is that a sentencing court retains inherent power to revisit its own order on proof of non-compliance, but that power has not been tested against the statutory text in a reported decision, so far as this piece could verify.

How courts have filled the gap in practice

The absence of statutory machinery has not stopped courts from sentencing to community service. It has produced the opposite: courts writing their own machinery into individual orders, and at least one High Court issuing systemic directions because the absence of a protocol was itself producing inconsistent sentencing.

The clearest illustration is Usman Alias Andha v. State of Rajasthan, decided by the Rajasthan High Court at its Jodhpur bench on 27 March 2026 (2026:RJ-JD:13120, CRLMB-2242/2026, per Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali). The court, considering a bail application, took up the state of community service sentencing under the BNSS directly. It recorded that “the concept of Community service is not getting properly implemented owing to the dilemma as to how and in which matters and manner it should be awarded”, and found that no structured plan existed to identify appropriate work, assign it, or monitor it. The court went on to identify categories it considered acceptable in principle: work under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, tree plantation, assistance at government hospitals, service at religious institutions, cleaning of public parks and schools, work with registered NGOs, and services falling within a state government notification the order refers to. It then directed the state’s Chief Secretary and police leadership to frame a standard operating procedure, to designate a nodal officer of at least the rank of Superintendent of Police in every district, and to maintain registers at the police station level, supported by digital tracking where feasible and periodic inspection. None of this apparatus exists in the text of the BNS or the BNSS. The High Court built it by direction because the legislature had not.

A second illustration shows the gap from the other side, in the hands of a trial-level bail order rather than a considered High Court judgment. In Paritosh Mandal alias Pritosh Kumar alias Peritosh v. State of Bihar, decided by the Patna High Court on 25 February 2026 (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12993 of 2026, per Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava), the court granted bail in a theft matter, noting that Section 303(2) provides for community service where the value of the stolen article is under Rs 5,000, and directed the accused, as a condition of bail, to perform community service at a named temple in Purnia for three months, present from six in the morning to six in the evening, keeping the premises clean and serving water to visitors. Two things are worth flagging about this order for a working lawyer rather than treating it as a template. First, it uses community service as a bail condition rather than as the final punishment the statute actually authorises the trial court to impose after conviction, which is a different legal footing entirely and one the BNS does not expressly address, and it is worth reviewing what a properly drafted bail application should say about any proposed condition before it goes before the bench. Second, the specificity of the order, a named location, a named schedule, a named duty, came entirely from the individual bench, not from any statutory template, which is exactly the pattern the Rajasthan High Court’s SOP direction was trying to standardise.

Read together, the two cases show a system in transition: individual judges improvising workable, humane orders in the near-total absence of legislative machinery, with at least one High Court now trying to convert ad hoc practice into a district-level protocol. For a lawyer citing either order, how to cite Indian judgments correctly and checking whether an authority is still good law before relying on it in submissions are the two housekeeping steps worth doing before either citation goes into a filing, since 2026 orders of this kind are new enough that appellate treatment has not yet settled. The current status of either matter, including whether the SOP direction has been complied with, can be tracked through the National Judicial Data Grid on eCourts.

BNS community service versus the IPC position

AspectBNS positionIPC position
Recognised as a punishment✓ Section 4(f)✗ not specified in the Act
Statutory definition of the term✓ Explanation to BNSS Section 23not specified in the Act
Number of offences carrying it✓ six (Sections 202, 209, 226, 303(2), 355, 356(2))not specified in the Act
Mandatory (no imprisonment alternative) in any case✓ Section 303(2) proviso, first-time theft under Rs 5,000not specified in the Act
Named supervising authoritynot specified in the Actnot specified in the Act
Statutory default consequence tied to a fine ceiling✓ Section 8(5), for the five fine-linked offencesnot specified in the Act
Statutory default consequence for the mandatory theft clausenot specified in the Actnot specified in the Act
Rule-making power delegated for implementationnot specified in the Actnot specified in the Act

Advising a client today

A defence lawyer facing a community service question in 2026 is working with a punishment that is real, that a magistrate can and does impose, and that a client can and does serve, but that has almost no statutory scaffolding around it. Three practical points follow directly from the gap this piece has traced.

First, confirm the offence is actually one of the six. Community service is not a general fallback a defence counsel can argue for on the strength of a client’s clean record or the pettiness of the alleged conduct outside Sections 202, 209, 226, 303(2), 355 and 356(2). Outside that list, the argument has no statutory footing.

Second, for the Section 303(2) proviso specifically, push for precision in the order itself, since the Act gives the court no template to fall back on. What work, for how long, reporting to whom, and what happens if the client cannot complete it because of illness, employment, or the simple absence of any designated work in that district, are all questions the Usman Alias Andha order suggests a court can and, in Rajasthan at least, now should answer at the point of sentencing rather than leaving to be litigated later on a contempt or non-compliance application.

Third, treat any community service order made as a bail condition, as in the Patna High Court’s Paritosh Mandal order, as distinct from a post-conviction sentence under Section 303(2). The statutory basis for the two is not the same, and a client should understand which one has actually been imposed on them. Where the underlying charge is otherwise resisted, it is also worth checking early whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, since that classification, not the community service question, usually decides how quickly the client is out on bail in the first place, and Section 226 in particular sits close enough to public-order offences that anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 can be worth exploring before an FIR is even registered.

None of this changes with better legal research tooling on its own, but knowing which of the sections actually carries the punishment, and having the two available orders on hand rather than reconstructing them from memory, is the kind of groundwork that decides whether a bail or sentencing hearing on this point goes well. A citator that flags whether Usman Alias Andha or Paritosh Mandal has since been followed, distinguished, or appealed is exactly the kind of check worth running before either order is cited to a bench, and Niyam’s citator is built for precisely that question on fast-moving 2026 orders like these two.

For related procedural questions that come up alongside a community service sentence, the BNSS statutory timelines checklist covers the deadlines that apply to the underlying prosecution, and the guide to how BNS sections map onto the old IPC is relevant wherever a client’s offence date predates 1 July 2024 and the older code, without any community service option, still governs.

flowchart TD
    A[Offence charged] --> B{"Is it BNS s.202, 209, 226, 303(2), 355 or 356(2)?"}
    B -- No --> C[Community service not available]
    B -- Yes --> D{"Is it the s.303(2) theft proviso?"}
    D -- Yes --> E{First conviction, value under Rs 5,000, property or value returned?}
    E -- Yes --> F[Community service is the mandatory sentence]
    E -- No --> G["General s.303(2) punishment applies"]
    D -- No --> H[Court may choose imprisonment, fine, both, or community service]
    F --> I[Court must fix work, supervision and duration itself]
    H --> I
    I --> J{Convict performs the ordered work?}
    J -- Yes --> K[Sentence complete]
    J -- No --> L[Default consequence under s.8, where a fine ceiling exists]
    L --> M["Simple imprisonment, capped by s.8(5)"]

Frequently asked questions

Is community service a new punishment under Indian criminal law?

Yes. Section 4(f) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which came into force on 1 July 2024, is the first time an Indian criminal code has listed community service as a form of punishment. The Indian Penal Code’s Section 53 recognised five punishments and did not include it.

Which BNS sections allow a court to sentence someone to community service?

Six sections: Section 202 (public servant unlawfully engaging in trade), Section 209 (non-appearance in response to a proclamation), Section 226 (attempted suicide to compel a public servant), Section 303(2) (theft, in the first-time low-value proviso), Section 355 (misconduct in public by an intoxicated person), and Section 356(2) (defamation).

Does the BNS define what counts as community service?

No. The BNS itself contains no definition. The only statutory definition sits in the Explanation to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which describes it as unpaid work a court orders a convict to perform for the community’s benefit.

Is community service ever mandatory rather than discretionary?

Yes, in one instance. Under the proviso to Section 303(2) of the BNS, a person convicted for the first time of theft of property worth less than Rs 5,000, who returns the property or its value, must be sentenced to community service. The court has no discretion to impose imprisonment instead in that specific fact pattern.

Who decides what work a convict must perform?

The Act does not say. Neither the BNS nor the BNSS names a supervising authority, an approved list of tasks, or a procedure for assignment. In practice, individual courts have specified the work in the sentencing order itself, and the Rajasthan High Court, in Usman Alias Andha v. State of Rajasthan (2026), has directed the state to build a district-level protocol to standardise this.

What happens if a convict refuses to perform ordered community service?

Section 8(5) of the BNS caps the default imprisonment a court can impose at two, four, or twelve months depending on the fine ceiling fixed for the underlying offence. This mechanism works for the five offences where community service substitutes for a stated fine. For the mandatory theft proviso under Section 303(2), which states no fine figure, the Act does not specify a default consequence.

Can community service be imposed as a bail condition rather than a final sentence?

Courts have done this in practice. In Paritosh Mandal v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 25 February 2026), the court made community service at a named location a condition of bail in a theft matter falling within Section 303(2), rather than imposing it as the final post-conviction sentence. The statutory basis for a bail condition and a Section 303(2) sentence is not the same, and a defendant should know which one has actually been ordered.

Does BNS community service replace imprisonment for the same offence, or is it separate?

For five of the six offences, community service is one option among several the court may choose, alongside imprisonment, fine, or both. It replaces imprisonment only where the court elects it for that offence. Under the Section 303(2) theft proviso, it replaces imprisonment entirely, by operation of the proviso itself, once the stated conditions are met.

Is community service available for offences under the old Indian Penal Code?

No. Community service exists only as a BNS punishment. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried and sentenced under the IPC, which has no equivalent provision, unless a specific savings or transitional rule directs otherwise for a particular case.

Which court can pass a sentence of community service?

Section 23 of the BNSS lets a Magistrate of the first class or a Magistrate of the second class impose community service, within the same monetary and term limits that apply to their fine and imprisonment powers respectively. A Chief Judicial Magistrate, who may pass any sentence short of death, life imprisonment, or a term exceeding seven years, can also order it for an offence that carries it.

How long can a community service order last?

The Act does not fix a duration for the work itself. Courts have set the term in individual orders, for example three months in the Patna High Court’s Paritosh Mandal order. There is no statutory minimum or maximum period stated in either the BNS or the BNSS.

Does the state have to provide a list of approved community service tasks?

Not by statute. The Rajasthan High Court, in the absence of any legislative list, identified categories it considered acceptable, including work under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, tree plantation, hospital assistance, service at religious institutions, cleaning of public parks and schools, and NGO work, and directed the state administration to formalise a protocol. Whether other states have done anything comparable is not addressed in either central Act.

Is community service the same as probation?

No. Probation, under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a distinct mechanism with its own statutory probation officer role and its own conditions. Community service under the BNS is a standalone punishment named in Section 4(f) for six specific offences, with no probation officer or equivalent functionary built into the text.

Can a first-time offender always avoid imprisonment by offering community service?

No. Community service is available only for the six named BNS offences. A first-time offender charged under any other section of the BNS has no statutory basis to request community service in place of the punishment that section actually prescribes.

What should a defence lawyer check before a client agrees to a community service order?

Confirm the offence is one of the six sections that actually carries it, and press for the order to specify the work, its duration, the supervising point of contact, and the consequence of non-completion, since the Act itself supplies none of these details. Where the order is a bail condition rather than a final sentence, confirm which one is actually being imposed.

Where can I read the actual text of Section 4 and Section 23?

Section 4 of the BNS is in the Ministry of Home Affairs gazette notification of the Act. Section 23 of the BNSS, including the Explanation defining community service, is available on Indian Kanoon’s bare-act pages. Community service does not appear as a defined term anywhere else in either code.

How does community service under the BNS compare with community service orders in other countries?

That comparison is outside the scope of what either Act specifies, and no comparative figure is given here because the BNS text itself does not draw the comparison and no Indian government body has published one alongside the Act.