Introduction
During the Winter Session of Parliament, Supriya Sule (NCP-Sharad Pawar) introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 [hereinafter, “Bill”] as a private member’s bill aimed at protecting employees from after hours work communications and fostering healthier work life boundaries. The Bill frames a statutory “right to disconnect” - the right not to engage with calls, emails, messages or video meetings beyond agreed work hours or on holidays - as essential to mental health and dignity at work. In doing so, it squarely targets the “always on” culture attendant to digital workplaces and hybrid models, positioning the measure as a work life balance reform rather than a mere procedural adjustment.

Key Provisions of the Bill
The Bill lays down a framework that seeks to redefine the contours of employer-employee engagement in the digital age. At its core, it grants employees the unequivocal right to refuse work-related communication outside their contracted hours without fear of disciplinary action. This right extends to phone calls, emails, text messages, and even video conferences, thereby addressing the full spectrum of modern workplace connectivity.

Recognizing that certain situations may demand urgent intervention, the Bill provides for negotiated emergency protocols. Employers and employees are expected to mutually agree on what constitutes an emergency and how such communication should occur, preferably through workplace charters or committees. This approach balances operational exigencies with the principle of personal time.

Further, the Bill introduces a safeguard against unpaid digital overtime by mandating overtime pay whenever employees voluntarily engage beyond their scheduled hours. This provision aligns with existing wage laws and seeks to curb the silent erosion of work-life boundaries caused by technology.

To ensure compliance, the Bill envisages the creation of an Employees’ Welfare Authority, tasked with framing guidelines, resolving disputes, and promoting digital well-being. Non-compliance attracts monetary penalties, calculated as one percent of the total remuneration paid to employees, signaling a deterrent rather than a punitive approach. Complementing these measures, the Bill also emphasizes mental health by proposing counseling services and digital detox programs to combat stress and “telepressure,” acknowledging that the right to disconnect is as much about psychological well-being as it is about legal entitlement.

Analysis: Pros and Cons if Enacted
The proposed legislation represents a significant cultural and legal shift in India’s employment landscape. On the positive side, codifying a right to disconnect could help dismantle the pervasive “always-on” work culture that has intensified with remote and hybrid models. Employees often find themselves tethered to their devices long after official hours, blurring the line between professional and personal life. By granting a statutory right to refuse after-hours communication without fear of reprisal, the Bill promises to restore boundaries essential for mental health and productivity. Furthermore, the provision for overtime pay when employees choose to engage beyond their scheduled hours addresses the chronic issue of unpaid digital overtime, aligning with the principles of fairness embedded in Indian labour law.

However, the Bill is not without challenges. Enforcement remains the most formidable hurdle. While the proposed penalty of 1% of total employee remuneration may appear stringent, its application across diverse enterprises-from small startups to multinational corporations-could lead to disputes over proportionality and compliance. Additionally, India’s service-driven economy, heavily reliant on global clients and cross-border time zones, complicates the feasibility of rigid disconnection norms. Even with emergency protocols, defining what constitutes “urgent” communication is fraught with ambiguity and could invite litigation.

Another concern lies in the practicalities of monitoring violations. In a digital environment, distinguishing between voluntary engagement and employer compulsion is inherently complex. Without robust documentation standards and clear evidentiary guidelines, the law risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. Finally, cultural attitudes toward work in India-where long hours are often valorized as a marker of commitment-may slow acceptance, making implementation as much a behavioural challenge as a legal one.

Conclusion: Is India Ready, and How Should Implementation Work?
India’s readiness for a statutory right to disconnect must be assessed against both global precedents and domestic realities. Countries like France and Portugal have successfully embedded similar rights into their labour codes, requiring employers to negotiate after-hours communication protocols and imposing penalties for violations. These frameworks operate within cultures that strongly value collective bargaining and enforceable labour standards. India, by contrast, has a fragmented labour market and weaker institutional mechanisms for workplace negotiation, which means a direct transplant of these models may not yield the same results.

That said, the principle behind the Bill is timely and necessary. If enacted, its success will depend on nuanced implementation: sector-specific codes of practice, mandatory workplace charters, and proportionate enforcement mechanisms that balance deterrence with flexibility. Integrating overtime provisions with existing wage laws and investing in digital well-being programs can further strengthen its impact. Ultimately, the law must move beyond paper compliance to cultural transformation-one that normalizes boundaries without undermining operational exigencies. The debate sparked by this Bill is itself a step toward that shift, signaling that India is ready to begin reimagining work-life balance as a legal right rather than a managerial courtesy.

By - Manasi Chaudhari