Authored By: Swaraj Ruke
Government Law College, Mumbai
Introduction
With the rise of the digital economy in India, the boundaries of work and personal life have become ever more indistinct. Cross-border workflows, always-connected applications, and smartphones mean that many employees are now used to extensive work hours.[1] This digital revolution is enhancing economic growth, but in the process is putting mental health and work-life balance at risk. The “Right to Disconnect” has therefore emerged as an important issue and legislative and policy challenge.[2]
Concept & Global Status
The “Right to Disconnect” refers to the legally acknowledged ability of employees to cease using work-related digital communications after their regular scheduled working hours and without threats of punishment or reprisal.[3] Employers are required to officially clarify their after-hours contact policies and complaint resolution processes in accordance with France’s landmark 2017 law, as well as similar laws enacted in Ireland, Spain, and Belgium.[4] These rights are viewed in today’s digitally-based working environments as increasingly recognized and fundamental protections of the autonomy, privacy, and well-being of workers.
India’s Legal Foundations: The Spirit and the Gaps
Statutory Protections
The main legal protections for leisure and recreation are still the Factories Act of 1948 and the Shops and Establishments Acts of the states which affect most of the workforce in India (except for the gig sector and workers in the informal economy).[5] Section 51 (maximum hours of work in a week) and Section 55 (mandatory rest intervals for workers) limit the taking of normal and overtime work, to protect workers from exploitation and to ensure their rest.[6] Neither, however, specifically addresses employers’ after-hours digital overreach.
The Constitution and Court Decisions
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to dignity, rest, and health, which is additionally encapsulated in the direction of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Article 38 and Article 39(e) direct the state to protect the health and interest of the workers.. Furthermore, the courts have construed the provisions of “life and personal liberty” to include dignity at the workplace, mental health, and humane conditions for the labourers.[7] The reference to the humane conditions of work can be seen in certain key judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, such as in the Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, and Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. UOI.[8]
Changing Work Cultures: Societal and Economic Consequences
The rapid expansion of India’s tech and finance industries, customer-facing work across time zones, and adoption of gig work have all strengthened a 24/7 work culture, particularly affecting younger workers and women, for whom the “work and home” overlap is greatest.[9] While official policies record hours capped at a maximum, managers still likely expect “availability” thereafter, which produces stress, burnout, and contributes to reduced quality of life. Reports have estimated that Indian women in urban service occupations can exceed 55 hours a week, with strong health and family consequences thereafter.[10]
Psychological and workplace studies link digital overwork to anxiety, insomnia, high blood pressure, and elevated risks for depression and heart disease. These problems produce significant economic costs embodied in decreased productivity and work output, absenteeism of workers, and greater attrition of the skilled workforce.[11]
Legislative Efforts and Policy Debates
Supriya Sule’s Right to Disconnect Bill, 2018
In 2018, MP Supriya Sule presented a Private Member’s Bill in the Lok Sabha, the most significant attempt to establish the entitlements of digital workers.[12] The bill recommended, in the following ways:
- Create Employees’ Welfare Authority to prescribe and regulate disconnection relations.
- Require employers to reach an employer-employee agreement about contacting employees outside of working hours; an employees’ welfare committee would represent the interests of employees.
- Enable employees to legally disregard digital communications after working hours, without being penalized or losing their job.
- Impose penalties on employers who fail to comply with these requirements, which could include counselling for digital wellbeing.[13]
Even though it was a promising step, the bill has never been taken up in Parliament and no action has taken place in the passage of the bill since.[14] Although critics identified issues with vague definitions and limited scope for practical enforcement, the bill marked an important moment in recognizing the dangers of new forms of work.
Policy and Administrative Responses
Although there are no laws at the level of the nation, state governments and the Ministry of Labour and Employment have established working groups and are convening discussions with business and industry leaders on digital wellness and work-life balance, particularly in tech hubs such as Karnataka and Maharashtra. Some organizations, specifically multinational companies or progressive Indian tech firms, have implemented digital curfews and wellness hours on a voluntary basis, but there is no formalization or accountability.
Economic Survey and Official Position
The government’s Economic Survey (2024) suggested expanding the “monetizable time” of Indian workers, and it demonstrates some official hesitance to legally limit overtime or employer expectations—demonstrating one of the tensions of policy between productivity and worker wellbeing.[15]
Judicial Recognition and Emerging Practice
Although there are very few precedents, the Indian courts are open to adapting constitutional protections to the digital age; specifically, courts have recognized the role of contracts, collective agreements, and company policy in negotiating rest, and have affirmed that the right to health and rest is an inextricable element of Article 21.[16] Forward-thinking companies have begun addressing the always-on culture in the work place through protected “unplugged” hours, grievance pathways for digital creep, and third-party verification against digital wellness best practices.
Challenges and Moving Forward
- Informality & Enforcement: In India, over 80% of labour is in the informal economy, and there are negligible protections for gig workers. Unless there is a sector-specific compliance and reporting system, enforcement of rest periods will be challenging.[17]
- Technology & Globalization: Globalization of work and hybrid workplaces make after-hours expectations magnified and tech cannot be contained by traditional means.
- Cultural change: A right to disconnect will only succeed with changed attitudes—both of employers (to respect employees time) and employees (to claim and exercise that right).
On the Road to An Indian Model
Drawing upon comparative law, empirical research, and India’s particular context, it is reasonably clear what is next:
- Legal Framework: Establish the right to disconnect in the labour codes with sector-specific or job-specific baselines.
- Monitoring & Enforcement: Require employers to document expectations and patterns of contact in after-hours communication, to offer a pathway to internal redress in the case of violation, and for periodic audits by labour departments to assess such practices.
- Support to Small Business: Provide technical support and templates for small businesses to develop digital boundary policies and procedures regarding their enactment.
- Public Awareness: Launch a national campaign to promote the importance of creating digital boundaries for employee health and productivity.
- Collective Bargaining: Support union-driven discussions regarding the right to disconnect, which has been raised in negotiations regarding remuneration, answered or simply in health benefits discussions.
Global Lessons: What Works
International experience suggests:
- Legally Clear Rights: Laws must define clear prohibitions or boundaries and reinstate and empower workers to exercise their digital rights.
- Sectoral Guidelines: Not all industries are the same, so guidelines must differ across sectors.
- Strong Incentives: Voluntary and third parties to certify (best practices for digital wellbeing) can spur compliance even when mandates are difficult.[18]
Conclusion
India’s Constitution, law, and policies show a strong commitment to promoting worker welfare and adequate rest at work, but the logic of the digital economy is at odds with, or challenges, employer and employee rights and obligations. The ability to have a strong right to disconnect must be part of a comprehensive labor policy that supports both wellbeing and productivity and dignified labor. The value of health, liberty, and equality in the Constitution cannot demand less. The future of India in the world as an economic power lies in maintaining the health, motivation, and freedom of its workforce, even in a world of “always-on.”
References / Bibliography:
- Factories Act, 1948
- Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954
- Labour Code, France (2017)
- The Right to Disconnect Bill 2018, Lok Sabha
- Constitution of India, Article 21
- Supreme Court Reports: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
- Vishakha & Ors v State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011
- Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India AIR 2020 SC 2277
[1] Shankarias Parliament, “Right to Disconnect | Current Affairs” (9 December 2024) (Shankar IAS Parliament)
[2] Vision IAS, “Growing Calls for ‘Right to Disconnect’ in India amid Concerns of Work-Life Balance” (12 December 2024) (VisionIAS)
[3] PMF IAS, “Right to Disconnect” (12 December 2024) (PMF IAS)
[4] French Business Law, “Article L2242-9 of the French Labour Code” (1 December 2023)
[5] Ministry of Labour and Employment, “The Factories Act 1948”
[6] MCRHRDI, “The Factories Act, 1948”
[7] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
[8] Vishakha & Ors v State of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 1997 SC 3011; Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India AIR 2020 SC 2277.
[9] Indian Express, “Work Culture Evolution 2023: Gen Z” (22 December 2023) (IndianExpress)
[10] NASSCOM Community, “Work-Life Balance Crisis: India’s 90-Hour Work Culture” (NASSCOM)
[11] IJLR, “Right to be Disconnected: Need in India”, vol 5, issue 653 (April 2025) (IJLR)
[12] Supriya Sule, “Right to Disconnect – MP Supriya Sule, Baramati Lok Sabha” (MP Sule)
[13] NLIU Law Review, “Right to Disconnect Bill 2018 – a Contemporary Analysis” (NLIU)
[14] NLIU Law Review, “The Right to Disconnect: Balancing Work and Well-being in the Digital Age” (NLIU2)
[15] Tarun IAS, “Right to Disconnect Law: Meaning, Benefits, Global Perspective” (Tarun IAS)
[16] iPleaders Blog, “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978: case analysis” (iPleaders)
[17] StudyIQ, “Indians Need the Right to Disconnect” (StudyIQ)
[18] Mondaq, “Right To Disconnect: Necessary For A Healthy Future?” (Mondaq)
