The idea of criminal justice in India has traditionally centred on punishment, deterrence, and retribution. However, with growing concerns about victim marginalisation, prison overcrowding, and recidivism, the discourse has gradually shifted towards restorative justice. One of the most debated questions within this framework is whether a victim can or should be reintegrated with the offender after the completion of punishment. This question does not invite a simplistic answer; instead, it demands a careful balancing of victims’ rights, societal interests, and the rehabilitative goals of criminal law.
Restorative justice, unlike retributive justice, focuses not solely on the offence but on repairing the harm caused by the crime. It seeks accountability from the offender while restoring dignity and agency to the victim[i]. In the Indian context, where criminal law has colonial roots and remains largely state-centric, this approach poses both opportunities and constitutional challenges.
[i] Speed J, ‘Restorative Justice: Emergence, Institutionalization, and Critiques’ Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (Springer, Cham 2021) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95960-3_54> accessed 27 March 2026
Victim-Centric Justice Under Indian Criminal Law
Historically, Indian criminal jurisprudence treated crime as an offence against the State, relegating the victim to a peripheral role. However, legislative and judicial developments over the last two decades have significantly altered this position. Moreover, Section 396[i] mandates about the victim compensation schemes for those victims who suffered violation of their rights due to the crime and they are in need of rehabilitation, acknowledging the victim’s right to restorative relief beyond mere conviction of the offender.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised victimology as an essential component of criminal justice. In Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka[ii], the Court recognised the victim’s right to participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings. Similarly, Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra[iii] reinforced the compensatory and rehabilitative dimensions of justice as victim compensation is not an ancillary but an integral part of the sentencing. These judicial pronouncements indicate a gradual shift towards recognising the victim not merely as a witness, but as a stakeholder whose healing must be addressed.
Restorative justice is often described as a humane alternative to strict punishment. Sometimes, its assumed that true restoration is achieved only when the victim and the offender eventually reconcile or reintegrate. The present research questions that assumption. It argues that reintegration cannot be treated as a necessary outcome of restorative justice. In the Indian context, any such process must first protect the victim’s autonomy. Reintegration may help in certain cases, but it should remain voluntary, carefully examined, and limited by the constitutional commitment to dignity and free choice.
Moreover, it’s pertinent to move beyond the narrow idea of the formal consent. Autonomy in the restorative context cannot be reduced to a simple ‘yes, or no’ expressed within the legal process. It should reflect that a genuine and voluntarily capacity to choose, exercised without subtle pressure from the stakeholder of the society like family or community, and any institutional expectations[iv]. In a society structured by hierarchy of gender, caste, class and social standing, that appears voluntary on paper, but practically be shaped by invisible constraints. Any restorative framework that helps in normalizing reintegration without engaging with the social realities risks weakening, rather than protecting, the victim’s freedom to decide the course of their healing.
[i] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
[ii] Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka & Anothers (Supreme Court of India)
[iii] Desk CE, ‘Reclassifying Murder to Culpable Homicide and Mandating Compensation: Insights from Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra’ (https://www.casemine.com, 4 May 2013) <https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/reclassifying-murder-to-culpable-homicide-and-mandating-compensation:-insights-from-ankush-shivaji-gaikwad-v.-state-of-maharashtra/view> accessed 27 March 2026
[iv] Yashvir Singh, Parineeta Goswami, ‘Theoretical Analysis of Restorative Justice and Social Healing in India: A Sociological and Legal Perspective’ (2024) 4 Journal of Informatics Education and Research <https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v4i3.1770> accessed 27 March 2026
Statutory Space for Restorative Practices
Indian statutes do not explicitly codify restorative justice as a separate framework, yet several provisions implicitly accommodate it. Plea bargaining under Chapter XXIII of the BNSS[i], compounding of offences under Section 359 of the BNSS, and probation under the Act of 1958, all reflect rehabilitative principles. In juvenile justice, restorative justice is more pronounced. The JJ Act[ii], prioritises rehabilitation and social reintegration, recognising that reconciliation may serve long-term societal interests. Additionally, Section 399 of Act[iii], provides compensation to an arrested person in cases of groundless arrest, with a maximum amount of ₹1,000 payable by the person responsible for such arrest. While this provision seeks to offer a remedial safeguard, it appears to insufficiently account for the profound and often irreversible impact that an arrest may have on an individual’s dignity, social standing, and reputation.
For instance, when a school teacher or small business owner is wrongfully arrested based on false information and later released due to a lack of credible grounds for arrest, the mere fact of arrest, often amplified through local media or community discourse, may permanently erode their professional credibility and social trust.
In such circumstances, the nominal compensation prescribed under the provisions of the statute risks reducing the deprivation of personal liberty to a routine procedural lapse, whereas, in reality, the reputational and psychological harm suffered by the individual far outweighs any monetary redress contemplated under the statute.
Also, keeping an arrested person beyond 24 hours, as mentioned in Section 58 of the BNSS, comes under the ambit of false imprisonment, as it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as stated in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[iv]. InRudal Sah v. State of Bihar[v], the petitioner was detained in prison for 14 years, even after being acquitted by the court. Later, the court directed the state to provide compensation, and the state provided Rs. 30,000 as interim compensation, with an initial payment of Rs. 5,000. The question that remains unanswered is whether Rs. 35,000 is adequate compensation to keep a person confined for 14 years. Moreover, in a case of false imprisonment on the charges of rape, an accused was kept in jail for 20 years and still no compensation was given by the state in Vishnu Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh[vi]. Restorative justice is incomplete unless the sorrow of the false imprisonment victims is heard by the Authorities, both by the state and the judiciary.
Such cases of wrongful arrest and prolonged detention raises a pertinent question about restoration. When the harm is caused due to the negligence of State, the restoration cannot be limited to reconciliation between private individuals. In such situations, the issue of autonomy becomes even more important[vii]. A person who has suffered institutional injustice must have complete freedom to decide whether to participate in any restorative process. If restorative justice focuses only on private disputes and overlooks structural failures, the idea of reintegration becomes incomplete and uneven in its application.
Additionally, the alternative dispute resolution mechanism involving the victim-offender dialogue in non-serious criminal offences, particularly those arising from family or community conflicts, have been considered as an alternatives to purely adversarial processes, and if carefully facilitated might reduce hostility in a foster a sense of closure.
Yet, these practices are primarily confined to less serious offences, leaving grave crimes outside the restorative discourse.
[i] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
[ii] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 2015
[iii] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
[iv] DK Basu v State of West Bengal (Supreme Court of India)
[v] Rudul Sah v State of Bihar and Anothers (Supreme Court of India)
[vi] Vishnu Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
[vii] Law RO, ‘RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RETRIBUTIVE PUNISHMENT’ (Record of Law, 30 December 2025) <https://recordoflaw.in/restorative-justice-as-an-alternative-to-retributive-punishment/> accessed 27 March 2026
The Limits of Reintegration: Victim Autonomy and Power Imbalances
While restorative justice aspires to healing, it must not romanticise reconciliation. In cases involving sexual offences, domestic violence, or crimes marked by structural inequalities, reintegration may perpetuate coercion rather than healing. Indian courts have rightly drawn clear boundaries in this regard[i]. Judicial refusal to legitimise compromises in serious offences underscores that public interest and victim protection cannot be sacrificed at the altar of reconciliation.
The Supreme Court’s stance against quashing heinous criminal proceedings based on settlement reflects an understanding that not all harms are repairable through dialogue. Victim reintegration must therefore remain an option, not an expectation. The constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21 requires that victims have the right to permanently distance themselves from their offenders[ii].
A Balanced Way Forward
A restorative justice model suited to India must be context-sensitive. It should operate as a complementary mechanism rather than a substitute for formal punishment. Post-conviction restorative programmes such as mediated dialogues, community conferencing, or reparative service can be explored, provided they are guided by trained professionals and grounded in voluntary participation. To make such participation, more meaningful, certain safeguard must be institutionalized.
- First, the victim should have access towards independent legal advice before giving any ascent towards the restorative process, and also ensuring that such decision is given without any conversion.
- Secondly, the restorative engagement should always be subject to judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases that involves structural vulnerability, so that the voluntariness is not presume, but it is properly examined.
- Thirdly, in cases of serious offenses that involves violence as asymmetry should attract, heightened caution, if not exclusion, from reintegration – based models.
Conclusively the participation must remain revocable at any stage without causing any adverse consequences to the victim. Without the adequate procedural protections, restorative justice risks becoming an instrument of efficiency rather than a space for meaningful and autonomous choice.
In Gian Kaur v State of Punjab[iii], the Supreme Court were of the view that the object of the criminal law is not merely to provide punitive punishment but also to encourage every effort to restore peace and harmony, permitting compromise-based closure in the private and offences of a personal nature where societal interest is not adversely affected. Moreover, the precedent laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Kaur was further affirmed. A refined approach was taken in Narinder Singh v State of Punjab[iv], where proceedings were quashed even at a later stage of the proceedings on the basis that there was a voluntary settlement between the parties and the offence was not of a serious nature, thereby implicitly acknowledging post-offence reconciliation as a legitimate outcome. Institutional safeguards are crucial. Clear statutory guidelines, judicial oversight, and trauma-informed practices must form the backbone of any reintegration effort. Importantly, restorative justice should not absolve the State of its duty to punish wrongdoing; instead, it should humanise justice by addressing the emotional and social aftermath of crime.
[i] Varunavi Bangia, ‘Restoration In Rape: A Case For Restorative Justice In Sexual Offences’ IX <https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Volume-IX-Issue-I-302-333.pdf>
[ii] ‘Can’t Quash Heinous Crime Cases Even If Parties Settle Dispute, Says Supreme Court’ The Times of India (5 October 2017) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cant-quash-heinous-crime-cases-even-if-parties-settle-dispute-says-supreme-court
[iii] Gian Kaur and Another v State of Punjab (The Supreme Court of India)
[iv] Narinder Singh & Ors v State of Punjab & Anothers (The Supreme Court of India)
The argument about reintegrating the victim with the convicted criminal upon termination of their sentence clearly shows how difficult decisions are made by India’s criminal justice system at every level – morally, constitutionally and institutionally. Restorative justice may provide a more compassionate way of making amends to victims who were harmed as part of an overly punitive approach to the use of the law; however, because of the fact that there can never be one single, all-encompassing approach to applying restorative justice, its applications in India will need to be very cautiously considered. Both judicial developments and statutory mechanisms indicate a gradual move toward “victim centric” justice through greater emphasis on compensation, participation, and maintaining dignity of the victim rather than enforced reconciliation. However, although Indian Courts appropriately continue to resist mandates requiring victim or offender reunification, notably when they recognize that coerced reunification has the potential to compound the victim’s trauma, the day-to-day experiences of people being wrongfully arrested, incarcerated for extended periods of time and inadequately compensated in regard to false imprisonments illustrate the limits of what may be accomplished by simply providing symbolism over substance regarding restoration.
Want to dive deeper? Check out this resource for more insights.
Aditya Mishra
Very Insightful Article on Restroration of Justice.