Syllabus: Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, mobilization of resources, growth, development and employment.
Context and Background
- The Right to Disconnect Bill has been introduced as a private member’s Bill, rarely enacted in India.
- It emerges after consolidation of labour laws into four labour codes regulating working hours and employer control.
- Digital technologies have expanded work beyond physical workplaces, blurring work–personal boundaries.
- The Bill signals a potential shift in Indian labour law’s response to constant digital connectivity.
Core Provisions of the Bill
- Grants employees the right to not respond to work-related calls or emails beyond prescribed working hours.
- Aims to limit employer expectations of constant availability through digital communication.
- However, the Bill does not define ‘work’ in the context of the digital economy.
Legal Ambiguities and Conceptual Gaps
- Indian labour law lacks a clear definition of digital work and after-hours engagement.
- The Bill does not clarify whether after-hours communication qualifies as “work”.
- This ambiguity becomes critical when read with the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.
- The Code governs working hours and overtime, but the Bill remains disconnected from it.
- Consequently, the right functions more as a behavioural guideline than an enforceable labour standard.
Comparative Perspectives from Other Jurisdictions
- In the European Union, employer control determines whether time qualifies as working time.
- Judicial precedents expanded working time to include on-call and standby periods.
- Employer control, not physical activity, became the defining criterion for work.
- France distinguishes clearly between working time and rest time.
- Periods under employer control are treated as working time, including digital availability.
- Germany enforces strict limits on working hours and mandatory rest periods.
- These examples highlight a central unresolved issue: when does employee time belong to the employer?
Contractual and Constitutional Concerns
- Indian labour codes combine mandatory rules with contractual arrangements.
- The Bill does not clarify whether the right to disconnect is mandatory or contractually alterable.
- There is an implicit linkage with Article 21 and individual autonomy.
- However, the Bill does not explicitly articulate its constitutional grounding.
- It remains unclear whether the right is purely statutory or constitutionally informed.
Conclusion
- The Bill acknowledges erosion of work–life boundaries due to digital labour.
- It fails to integrate digital work within existing frameworks of working time and employer control.
- Comparative experiences show effectiveness depends on recognising employee time as working time.
- The Bill marks a starting point, not a complete solution, in India’s labour law evolution.