The Hindu Editorial Analysis
23 December 2025
Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper – GS-2 Social Justice, Labour Reforms, Governance, Fundamental Rights
Context
The editorial analyses the proposed Right to Disconnect Bill, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, in the backdrop of India’s recent consolidation of labour laws through the four labour codes. With the rapid expansion of digital technologies, work increasingly extends beyond the physical workplace and conventional working hours. The Bill seeks to address this emerging reality by granting employees the right to disengage from work-related communications after prescribed hours. However, the article argues that while the intent is progressive, the Bill suffers from conceptual ambiguity and weak integration with existing labour law frameworks.
Core Issue
The core issue is whether the Right to Disconnect has been meaningfully integrated into India’s labour law architecture or merely introduced as a behavioural norm without legal clarity.
Indian labour law continues to regulate work primarily through:
- Time-based constructs (working hours, overtime),
- Employer control and supervision,
- Sector-specific statutory rules under labour codes.
The Bill regulates after-hours communication but fails to define the scope of “work” in a digital economy, creating uncertainty about how disengagement fits within legally recognised working time.
Ambiguity in the Definition of ‘Work’
A key weakness of the Bill lies in its silence on whether after-hours digital engagement constitutes “work”.
- The Bill allows employees to not respond to work-related calls or emails beyond prescribed hours.
- However, it does not clarify whether such engagement legally forms part of working time.
- This ambiguity becomes critical when read alongside the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which continues to govern working hours and overtime.
As a result, communication is regulated without being conceptually integrated into the legal framework governing working time.
Interaction with Existing Labour Codes
The Bill does not clearly specify:
- Whether the right to disconnect is a mandatory labour standard, or
- Whether it can be modified through contractual agreements.
This creates a conceptual gap where digital labour is acknowledged but not harmonised with employer control, overtime rules, or safety regulations already embedded in labour codes. Consequently, the right risks operating more as a moral expectation than a legally enforceable standard.
Comparative Perspective: Other Jurisdictions
The editorial highlights how other jurisdictions have addressed similar challenges:
- European Union:
Judicial precedents expanded the definition of working time to include call time, standby periods, and availability where employer control persists. - France:
Labour law demarcates working time and rest time, integrating digital communication into collective bargaining agreements. - Germany:
Enforces strict working-time and rest-period regulations, treating employer-controlled availability as work.
These examples underline a central question: when does an employee’s time belong to the employer?
The Indian Bill does not yet engage with this foundational issue.
Constitutional Dimension
Another unresolved concern is the constitutional character of the right to disconnect.
- The freedom to disengage has a clear relationship with Article 21, which protects personal liberty and individual autonomy.
- However, the Bill neither traces its constitutional lineage nor explains how this right is to be realised within the workplace.
This leaves open whether the right is:
- Purely statutory, or
- Indicative of a deeper constitutional engagement between labour rights and personal autonomy.
Systemic Gaps
The editorial points out that:
- Digital labour has blurred boundaries between work and personal life.
- Yet, the legal framework continues to rely on concepts designed for physical workplaces.
- Until the Bill directly addresses how digital labour fits within existing labour codes, enforcement and interpretation will remain inconsistent.
Conclusion
The Right to Disconnect Bill correctly recognises the transformation of work in the digital age, but it stops short of resolving how this transformation should be absorbed into India’s labour law regime.
Without:
- A clear definition of “work” in digital contexts,
- Integration with existing labour codes,
- Clarification of its constitutional basis,
the Bill remains the starting point of a broader legal conversation, rather than a complete solution. Its true value lies in initiating judicial, legislative, and scholarly engagement on how Indian labour law must evolve to protect worker autonomy in an increasingly connected world.