COMMUNITY SERVICE: AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT AS A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE

“Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.” – Shirley Chisholm

Community Service, in general terms, means the voluntary work done by a person for the upliftment and betterment of the society without expecting monetary compensation.This was later included in the Criminal Administration of Justice which paved a way for reformative justice as a non-custodial punishment.

Community Service under Sec 4(f) of BNS, 2023 and Proviso to Sec 23 has been given as a sixth form of punishment where the court may assign it to convicts which benefits the community and in regard of which no remuneration is paid to convicts. The punishment is given for six specific offences including:

Sec 209 (Non-appearance in response to proclamation);
Sec 202 (Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade);
Sec 226 (Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power);
Sec 303 (Petty theft);
Sec 355 (Misconduct in public by a drunken person) and
Sec 356 (Defamation).

ORIGIN OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE

The services could be traced back to the House of Correction of Bridewell Palace in London during 1553 to deal with the vagabonds by way of discouraging idleness and vagrancy using labour. This was later followed in the US by the introduction of Community Service in California around 1960-66 for offenses like drunk driving, later adopted nationwide as a sentencing option.

In 1970, a report titled “Non-custodial and Semi-custodial Penalties”, commonly referred to as the “Wootton Report,” suggested the community sentence as a form of punishment,which was eventually adopted in the Criminal Justice Act of 1972 (now the Powers of Criminal Courts Act of 1973). The First European use of this sentence occurred in 1971 under Juvenile Criminal Law.

As per India, The Pune Porsche accident case is a notable example of community service being used as a punishment in India. Where, the minor who was involved in a car accident, was sentenced to community service. This decision sparked a significant public and legal debate on the appropriateness and effectiveness of community service as a form of punishment.

RISE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE SENTENCES

The provision of community sentences has increased accordingly with the current state of overflowing prisons and their behavioural approach. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the occupancy rate of Indian prisons is consistently above 100%, with some states experiencing even higher rates of overcrowding.

With regard to pressure from Human Rights NGO`s, there is more stress on the reformative nature of convicts convicted for petty crimes with less degree of punishment. It is opined that the convicts with no criminal background deserve a chance for revival for their sins. Also laid in the traditional outlook of prāyaścitta, all humans deserve a better chance at atonement of their sins.

Also, due to overburden of cases upon the judiciary, there is a need for speedy justice which could connect the convicts with the different aspects of a society and requires certain punishments to be rewarded to such offenders of petty crimes.

BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE

The Criminal Administration of Justice in India is a dynamic mechanism in the Indian society which evolves with the aspect of dynamic crimes.Thus, inclusion of community service as a punishment was introduced as an alternative to traditional custodial sentences like simple or rigorous imprisonment. With this new advancement also came the new benefits as such:

1. Addressing Prison Overcrowding:

Community service is seen as a viable alternative to traditional forms of punishment, helping to alleviate the issue of prison overcrowding. With the increased crime rate, the rate of criminals in the prison cells is increasing too which has led to overcrowding. More criminals means more negative impact upon petty offenders which might have a chance at revival.

2. Reintegration into Society:

Convicts who might have lost a cause in society with this punishment might have a better chance at reintegrating into the society. This corrective measure connects the offenders with the society at its core and develops a sense of societal relations with the members of the society. It rebuilds their trust with the society and builds within them the skills of responsibility and organisation.

3. Boosts Mental Well-Being:

Convicts, often, commit crimes with their disturbed well-being and mental health and the custodial punishments mostly leave them with sense of anger and hatred towards the society but with the provision of Community sentencing, they regain a purpose in the society and their empathy is returned with kindness while reducing the stress and boosting self-confidence in them. It reduces social isolation and supports mental growth.

4. Benefits the Local Environment:

The sentence of Community service is a two-way road which benefits not only the convicts but also the localities, NGOs and organisations which convicts serve as a punishment. In today`s world, no one prefers volunteering to public causes without getting compensated. Thus, for the betterment of the society, these services act as an appropriate measure to prevent petty crimes.

5. Enhances Public Perception of Justice:

When offenders perform community service, the public sees justice not only as punishment but as repairing harm. This makes the system appear more balanced with more humanity attached to sentences and more focused on rehabilitation than revenge. This approach is more society-oriented than retributive justice.

6. Aligns with International Standards:

Community sentences are generally aligned with the international human rights principles under Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA). As per Article 21 of UDHR, which focuses on participation in public affairs and collective self-determination, this sentence also helps in boosting public participation and public growth.

CASE LAW REFERENCE

Rajesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 Scc OnLine Chh 441

A Landmark judgement where the Chhattisgarh High Court considered the appropriateness of the community service as a punishment for the accused.

The accused, Rajesh, a twenty-eight year old man was held guilty by the trial court under sec 379 of IPC of stealing an electrical transformer worth Rs 50,000/-, where he was accounted for six months of imprisonment. On Appeal to High Court, Justice Sanjay K. Aggarwal while writing the judgement stated that a punishment should be more reformative than just punitive. Thus, a community service for six months was awarded to the accused, Rajesh.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the inclusion of Community Service in the Criminal Administration of Justice is a huge milestone in the Indian Judiciary. However, it still lacks practical application and enforcement. According to a study by the National Law University, Delhi, the lack of clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms has hindered the effective implementation of community service sentences in India.

What is required is a strong mechanism and adaptation of community sentences by the Indian Judges into the crimes which require installation of human values. Crimes which are not grave and can be cured with simple punishments shall revert to society services, This not only helps the society but also shows a humane side of Indian Judiciary. This approach makes it visible that the administration is not hungry for revenge but thirsty for rehabilitation of offenders.

Article written by
Priasha Talia
B.A.LL.B- 4th year
Punjabi University, Patiala