The Right to Disconnect: Regulating Remote Work in Indian Labour Law

Abstract

The emergence of digital technology and geographic disentanglement of work, rapid expansion of work-from-home options, especially due to COVID-19, has significantly shifted traditional work-life boundaries. Although it provides flexibility and efficiency, it has also reduced barriers between professional and personal life, leading to digital overwork. The Right to Disconnect has become a pressing labour rights issue concerning an employee’s entitlement to disengage from work communications during non-work hours.

This article assesses the current position under Indian labour law regarding remote work and examines the feasibility of implementing a statutory Right to Disconnect. This study, through review of existing jurisprudence, comparative jurisdictions, and evolving workplace practices, suggests that India requires a legislative overhaul to manage the impact of digitalization on work and workers’ fundamental rights.

The paper further elaborates that the Right to Disconnect should be explicitly included in Indian labour legislation by tracing its constitutional roots, discussing the inefficiencies of existing labour codes, and learning from international practice. It proposes a legislative framework within the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, supported by sectoral policy, enforcement strategies, and awareness campaigns. Finally, the article asserts that a legislated Right to Disconnect would promote work-life balance, mental health, and productivity, aligning India with international best practices in labour regulation.

Keywords: Right to Disconnect, Labour Law, Remote Work, Work–Life Balance, India, Digital Overwork.

Introduction

Labour-technology relations have continued to be a revitalizing power that alters the organization, performance, and regulation of work. This transformation has intensified in the modern digital age, creating new forms of employment, including remote work.^[1] In India, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote and hybrid work, particularly in the IT,^[2] finance, and service sectors. While these models offer flexibility, they have also blurred the line between professional and personal lives.^[3]

This shift has resulted in employees being implicitly expected to be “always available,” leading to mental exhaustion, stress, and burnout. The Right to Disconnect—first legally recognized in France in 2016^[4]—protects workers’ ability to disengage from professional communication outside official working hours.

The current article argues for the necessity of the Right to Disconnect within Indian labour law. It contends that, despite the humane principles embedded in the new labour codes, they fall short of addressing the challenges of the digital economy. Thus, a statutory Right to Disconnect is both justified and constitutionally valid.

Technological advancements and new workplace dynamics have dismantled the old system of fixed working time and space.^[5] India’s legal framework, conceived during the industrial era, fails to accommodate these changes, resulting in significant regulatory gaps and inadequate worker protection.

The Right to Disconnect seeks to protect employees from expectations of unlimited availability and to preserve the boundary between work and personal life. While several European jurisdictions^[6] have enacted laws addressing this issue, Indian labour law remains largely silent on regulating digital aspects of employment. This article discusses the development of the Right to Disconnect in Indian law, analyzing existing provisions, judicial interpretations, and the need for reform within South Asian legal frameworks.

Research Problem and Objective

The core research problem lies in the absence of explicit recognition of the Right to Disconnect within Indian labour law, despite mounting evidence of digital overwork.

Objectives

• To evaluate how effectively Indian labour laws manage work–life balance.
• To identify constitutional grounds supporting the Right to Disconnect.
• To compare international experiences and best practices.
• To propose reforms suitable for India’s socio-economic conditions.

Literature Review

Existing scholarship on telework and digital labour highlights the need for robust regulation. Messenger and Gschwind discuss the evolution of telework across three generations, culminating in the concept of the “virtual office.” De Stefano critiques gig work, pointing out vulnerabilities faced by workers in the digital economy.

In India, Rao observes that recent labour codes fail to address the realities of remote work, while Kumar and Singh document rising occupational stress among IT workers during the pandemic. The Indian Society for Labour Economics (ISLE) reports widespread dissatisfaction with blurred work-life boundaries.

Internationally, Kelly argues that the Right to Disconnect enhances mental health and gender equality. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) advocates for EU-wide digital labour rights legislation.

These studies collectively reveal a significant gap: although the harmful effects of digital overwork are well documented, there is little research on integrating the Right to Disconnect into India’s legal framework. This article aims to fill that gap through comparative and constitutional analysis.

Research Questions

1. Does the Indian labour law framework adequately protect workers’ right to rest in the digital economy?
2. Can the Right to Disconnect be justified under the Constitution of India?
3. What lessons can India draw from international models?
4. What statutory reforms are necessary for India to implement such a right?

The Indian Legal Framework on Working Hours

Factories Act, 1948

The Factories Act, 1948 controls working hours, weekly holidays, and overtime.^[7] However, it is specific to industries and does not cover the service sector or remote workers.

Shops and Establishments Acts

State-level Shops and Establishments Acts regulate businesses. For instance, the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act sets daily and weekly limits on working hours.^[8] Yet, enforcement is often weak, and the laws do not include informal and remote work.

Labour Codes

The merging of 29 laws into four labour codes aimed to update labour regulation. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code) outlines working hours and leave entitlements,^[9] but it does not consider the digital challenges of remote work. Similarly, the Code on Wages, 2019 defines “overtime,” but not digital communication after hours.^[10]

Judicial Recognition of Humane Work

The Supreme Court has consistently broadened labour rights:

• In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India,^[11] the Court ruled that health and medical care are fundamental rights under Article 21.^[12]
• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,^[13] it stressed that humane working conditions are part of the right to life.

However, judicial gains cannot replace the need for clear laws.

International Perspectives

The right to disconnect has become more popular all over the world, particularly in the European Union. In 2021, the European Parliament passed a Resolution (2021/2181(INL))^[14] which suggested introduction of an EU-wide directive that acknowledges the right to disconnect as a fundamental right and cited the dangers of burnout and psychological suffering.

France

France was the first country to pass Law No. 2016-1088 (El Khomri Law)^[15] requiring organizations with more than 50 employees to negotiate digital disconnection terms. The legislation is viewed as a matter of health and safety, highlighting the state’s responsibility to ensure that employees are not exploited.

Spain

Spain followed with Law 3/2018 on Data Protection and Digital Rights^[16] that expressly gives employees the right to unplug digital devices when they are not working. In 2021, Portugal revised its labour laws to limit employers’ ability to contact workers after hours, imposing penalties for violations.

Germany

In Germany, no lawful right applies, but many corporations such as Volkswagen and Daimler have implemented internal policies limiting email server activity after work hours. The Federal Labour Court of Germany (Bundesarbeitsgericht)^[17] has also associated excessive working hours with infringement of employees’ health rights.

Other Countries

Other nations such as the Philippines and Canada (for instance, Bill 27, 2021, Ontario) have also introduced some form of digital disconnection, with mental health and family life cited as primary reasons.

The ILO Decent Work Agenda and Convention No. 1 on Hours of Work (1919)^[18] also highlight the importance of limiting working hours and ensuring adequate rest. India, however, has not yet enacted any laws regarding digital disconnection and has only ratified select ILO conventions, representing a normative gap.

The Constitutional Basis for the Right to Disconnect

Article 21

The right to life with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to health and rest. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation^[19], the Court highlighted the broad understanding of Article 21. Compelled digital overwork damages dignity and violates this right.

Directive Principles

Article 42 tells the State to create fair and humane working conditions. While these principles cannot be enforced in court, the Supreme Court has often used them to inform how laws are interpreted, as seen in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu^[20].

Article 23

The ban on forced labor includes cases of economic pressure. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India^[21], the Court decided that low pay counts as forced labor. Being pushed to stay digitally available beyond working hours could fit this reasoning.

International Obligations

India is a founding member of the ILO and has accepted agreements on working hours and rest, such as the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1)^[22]. The ILO’s “Decent Work Agenda” stresses the importance of rest and work-life balance as key to fair labor standards^[23].

Comparative International Practice

Lessons for India

Legislative Approach vs. Corporate Self-regulation

A statutory approach, as seen in France and Spain, has created enforceable rights, unlike Germany’s corporate-based initiatives relying on internal policies. In India, where the informal workforce is large, statutory intervention may be necessary to ensure uniformity^[28].

Cultural and Economic Backgrounds

In Europe, robust trade unionism and collective bargaining help enforce rights. India, however, has less unionization in industries such as IT, BPO, and gig work — where digital overwork is widespread. Thus, state-enforced statutory law becomes essential.

The Link Between Health and Productivity

Global experience shows that disconnection improves productivity and reduces burnout. Surveys in France after legislation reported reduced work stress and higher satisfaction. Such data can inform Indian policy, as mental health issues are a major cause of workplace stress (National Mental Health Survey, 2016)^[29].

Challenges in Enforcement

• Even in Europe, perfect enforcement is rare; workers still face subtle coercion to stay available.
• In India, lack of awareness and high unemployment could hinder compliance.
• Enforcement requires combining legislation with awareness and digital monitoring systems.

Hybrid Model for India

India could adopt a mixed approach — legalizing the Right to Disconnect while providing sector-specific guidance and requiring employers to design company-specific policies. This balances flexibility and enforceability.

Thus, while international models cannot be entirely transplanted, India can adapt their core elements: statutory protection, employer obligations, and digital safeguards — tailored to its socio-economic realities.

Proposed Legislative Model for India

India’s labour law framework is evolving as the four new Labour Codes replace outdated laws. However, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code) does not address the realities of remote and hybrid work. To bridge this gap, India could introduce a mandatory Right to Disconnect (RTD) provision, inspired by France, Spain, and Ireland, but adapted to India’s socio-economic context.

Suggested Draft Provision

A draft clause could read:

Section XX – Right to Disconnect

1. Every employee has the right to stop work-related communications, including calls, messages, emails, or digital applications, after their working hours, except in emergencies.
2. No negative consequences will occur for an employee who exercises this right.
3. Every employer must create, with input from employees or trade unions, a written policy that outlines how to respect the Right to Disconnect and any exceptions specific to their industry.
4. The appropriate Government will set penalties for non-compliance.

This would establish the right as a labour standard, similar to working hour limits set by the Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishments Acts.

Policy Design Elements

This legislation would balance efficient operations with employee welfare. It would connect India’s outdated labour codes with the needs of a digital economy.^[30]

Constitutional Justification

Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

The Supreme Court has constantly broadened Article 21 to cover the right to live with dignity (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India^[31]). Overwork and constant digital interference in personal time can lead to burnout, depression, and sleep loss, which harm mental health—an important part of dignity recognized in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India^[32].

Article 42 – Humane Working Conditions

Although Directive Principles cannot be enforced by courts, Article 42 requires the State to provide humane working conditions. The RTD puts this requirement into action, similar to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, by acknowledging the need for recovery time as vital for fair labor practices.

Article 23 – Forced Labour

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Court stated that economic pressure can be seen as forced labor. In a digital workplace, the subtle pressure to respond after hours may be viewed as a modern form of coercion. Therefore, the RTD protects against exploitative “digital forced labor.”^[33]

Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom to Practice Profession

Employers might claim that the RTD limits their business freedom. However, under Article 19(6), reasonable restrictions can be placed in the interest of the public. Protecting employee mental health and ensuring fair labor standards are valid public concerns.

Thus, the RTD has strong constitutional support as both a fundamental right and a directive principle.

Anticipated Benefits of Legislation

Improved Mental and Physical Health

Studies show that constant connectivity leads to stress-related illnesses. The WHO has recognized burnout as an occupational issue (WHO, ICD-11, 2019). The Right to Disconnect (RTD) can lower mental strain and related health expenses.^[34]

Enhanced Productivity

Contrary to worries about decreased efficiency, research shows that well-rested employees are more creative and productive (Messenger & Gschwind, 2016). By setting clear boundaries, work during official hours becomes more focused.

Gender Equality

In India, where women often bear the brunt of unpaid domestic work, RTD helps prevent the overlap between professional and household responsibilities. This supports goals under Article 15(3) (protective laws for women) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

Talent Retention and Global Competitiveness

Multinational companies already implement RTD-like policies worldwide. Making this right part of Indian law would align local practices with global standards, making India more appealing to skilled professionals.

Challenges to Implementation

Cultural Expectations of “Always On” Work

In India, a hierarchical corporate culture generally views being responsive as loyalty. Changing this cultural perspective requires advocacy and awareness campaigns for companies, similar to those conducted for workplace harassment legislation.

Informal Sector Complexity

With 80 percent or more of India’s labor force in the informal sector, labour-friendly policies could only apply to organized or professional industries initially. However, the legislation can extend coverage gradually, for example, by covering platform workers under the Code on Social Security (2020).

Challenges of Monitoring and Enforcement

Employers may claim that after-hours work is “voluntary” in some industries. There needs to be a rigorous system of digital auditing of labour hours and, importantly, protection for employees reporting retaliation.

Exemptions by Industry

Some industries like IT, healthcare, and emergency services may need a more flexible approach. Labour laws and policy should incorporate a “reasonableness test” for these exemptions, while ensuring that employees are compensated for extended effort on projects.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Right to Disconnect is not simply a “western import,” but an essential labour standard for the digital age in India. If we do nothing, the rapidly expanding landscape of remote and hybrid work will continue to erode boundaries that protect workers’ margins of health, family life, and productivity.

This Article Proposes That:

• Amend the OSH Code 2020 to incorporate a statutory RTD provision.
• The Ministry of Labour develops model rules for sectoral RTD policies.
• Labour commissioners are empowered to monitor and ensure RTD adherence, similar to the enforcement of wage laws.
• Public awareness campaigns and training initiatives for employers.
• Incorporate RTD into India’s obligations under the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

In instituting an RTD law, India can assist its workforce in mitigating the hidden hazards of excessive digitalization, while reinforcing its constitutional commitments to dignity, health, and humane work conditions.

End Notes:

1. K D Srivastava, Commentary on Factories Act (Delhi Law House 2010).
2. ILO, Working from Home: From Invisibility to Decent Work (ILO 2021).
3. NITI Aayog, India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy (2022).
4. WHO, Mental Health and Work: Impact, Issues and Good Practices (2000).
5. ILO, Teleworking During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond (2020).
6. Law No 2016-1088 of 8 August 2016 (France).
7. Factories Act 1948 (No 63 of 1948).
8. Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act 2017 (Maharashtra Act No LXI of 2017).
9. OSH Code 2020 (No 37 of 2020).
10. Code on Wages 2019 (No 29 of 2019).
11. Consumer Education and Research Centre v Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42.
12. Constitution of India, 1950.
13. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.
14. EU Parliament Resolution of 21 January 2021 on the right to disconnect (2021/2181(INL)).
15. France, Law No 2016-1088 of 8 August 2016 (El Khomri Law).
16. Spain, Law 3/2018 on Data Protection and Digital Rights.
17. Working Time Regulations 1998 (UK).
18. ILO Convention No 1 on Hours of Work (1919).
19. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545.
20. M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 756.
21. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235.
22. ILO, Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No 1).
23. ILO, Decent Work Agenda (1999).
24. Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December 2018 (Spain).
25. Workplace Relations Commission, Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect (Ireland, 2021).
26. Federal Labour Court of Germany, 9 AZR 110/19 (2020).
27. Philippines House Bill No 4721 (2019).
28. A K Dube, ‘Labour Law and the Gig Economy in India’ (2021) 56(4) Economic and Political Weekly 45.
29. National Mental Health Survey of India 2016, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
30. S Fudge, ‘The Right to Disconnect: An Emerging Human Right’ (2020) 49 Industrial Law Journal 1.
31. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
32. Consumer Education and Research Centre v Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42.
33. A Kumar and R Singh, ‘Work from Home and Occupational Stress in India’s IT Sector’ (2022) Economic and Political Weekly 57(24) 38.
34. S Deakin and G Morris, Labour Law (7th edn, Hart Publishing 2021).