The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025: Is This India’s Answer to Work-Life Balance?

Author- Anagha Dinesan 

ABSTRACT

The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, introduced by MP Supriya Sule, represents India’s first national legislative attempt to address the erosion of work-life boundaries in the digital age. The bill’s core principle is simple: employers can contact employees after work hours, but workers have the right to refuse without facing disciplinary action or punishment. The bill establishes a three-tier framework: a central Employees’ Welfare Authority for policy formulation, mandatory company-level Charters for organizations with 10+ employees specifying when after-hours contact is permissible, and Employee Welfare Committees for worker representation. However, the reliance on “negotiation” raises concerns about power imbalances between employees and employers.

Constitutionally, the bill finds a strong foundation in the expansive interpretation of Article 21, encompassing dignity, privacy, and health, echoing the Supreme Court’s workplace rights recognition in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. It also operationalizes Directive Principles under Articles 39, 42, and 43, mandating humane working conditions.

Comparatively, India’s approach differs from international models: France mandates union involvement; Portugal prohibits after-hours contact except in emergencies; Australia enforces through the Fair Work Commission with severe penalties. India’s negotiation-based model offers flexibility but potentially weaker protection.

Despite addressing a genuine crisis, the bill is flawed. It does not define an enforcement mechanism, has ambiguous overtime provisions, and fails to address emergency exceptions. Current labour laws, such as the Factories Act (1948), Shops and Establishments Acts, and OSH Code (2020), regulate physical workplace presence but ignore digital connectivity challenges. As a private member’s bill, its primary achievement is introducing “right to disconnect” into legislative discourse, proving conceptually progressive despite operational underdevelopment.

Keywords:Right to disconnect, labour law reform, digital work regulation, comparativelegislation, and employee welfare

THE RIGHT TO DISCONNECT BILL, 2025

The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025[1], introduced in the Lok Sabha on February 21 by MP Supriya Sule, represents India’s first national-level legislative attempt to draw boundaries around our increasingly borderless digital work lives. But does this 23-section private member’s bill[2] actually protect workers, or is it just well-intentioned paperwork? The Bill has all it takes to be an answer for many exploitations employees are facing in this digital era. However, the bill still lacks the essentials to truly deter such practices due to lack of strong enforcement mechanisms.

WHAT IS THE “RIGHT TO DISCONNECT”?

At its core, the bill provides that employers have the liberty to contact their employees after work hours, but they do not have the obligation to respond. There can be no punishment for refusing the same. Any violation of this can lead to the employer being penalised.

The bill defines this “right to disconnect”under Section 7[3]: While your employer may reach out via call, email, or message outside agreed work hours, you have the right to refuse. Crucially, exercising this right cannot result in disciplinary action.Moreover, the bill mandates that governments establish “digital detox centres” providing counselling on reasonable personal use of digital tools.[4]No international equivalent includes this public health infrastructure approach. It recognizes that the problem isn't just workplace policy but broader digital wellness.

THE THREE-LAYER STRUCTURE

The bill proposes a unique three-tier system:

Layer 1: The Employees’ Welfare Authority

A central body chaired by the Minister of State for Electronics and IT, with representation from Labour, Communications, and other ministries. This can be considered the policy head, conducting baseline studies on digital tool usage, formulating national guidelines, and overseeing compliance.[5]

Layer 2: Company-Level Charters

Every company or society with more than 10 employees must negotiate a “Charter” with workers on[6]-

• When employees can be contacted outside work hours

• Under what circumstances

• What compensation applies

However, “negotiation” assumes an equal bargaining power, which can be difficult in real life.

Layer 3: Employee Welfare Committees

Individual companies must constitute committees of employees to assist in negotiations with employers, providing a democratic representation.[7] But, without independent union backing or mandatory worker representatives, these could become meaningless.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

Here’s where the bill finds its strongest footing. Courts have read Article 21[8] expansively to include dignity, privacy, and quality of life.In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[9], the Supreme Court recognized workplace rights absent legislation. This bill codifies similar dignity-at-work principles.

The “right to disconnect” could be framed as giving effect to:

• Dignity: Employees are seen as perpetually available commodities rather than autonomous individuals, violating their dignity as independent individuals

• Privacy: Personal time must be protected from work intrusion, and employees are entitled to personal autonomy

• Health:Both mental stress reduction and physical burnout are results of inhuman working conditions

Article 39 - Directive Principles of State Policy

Though not judicially enforceable, the Directive Principles guide legislative intellect:

• Article 39(e)[10]:The health and strength essential for employees are eroded through unreasonable working schedules.

• Article 42[11]: Mandates just and humane conditions of work, which the disconnect bills operationalize this directive

• Article 43[12]: Secures living wages and a decent standard of living violated by unpaid overtime,undermining this goal

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

France’s ElKhomri Law[13] applies to companies with more than 50 employees and requires union negotiation where unions exist. The charter is not optional; it is mandatory, and unions have a real role in the process.

In Portugal,the law[14] is stricter with little room for flexibility. In 2021, they amended the Portuguese Labour Code toprotect employee rest time, aiming to reduce burnout and improve work-life balance for both remote and in-person workers.  The employers cannot contact employees outside work hours except in genuine emergencies. Employers may contact; employees may refuse. It’s permission-based, not prohibition-based.

Indian and Portuguese laws apply to companies with more than 10 employees. Portugal’s model offers stronger protection but less flexibility, while India’s model sounds more “reasonable” but may create a culture where refusing contact still carries informal penalties.

Australia’s Fair WorkAct[15]in 2024 introduced the right to disconnect as a statutory right. It pushes against unreasonable after-hours contact, with penalties up to AUD 18,780 per violation. Workers facing adverse actions for asserting disconnect rights can file general protections claims. The Fair Work Commission can resolve such disputes through binding arbitration, placing the onus on employers to justify the lawfulness and reasonableness of their actions when questioning an employee’s refusal.

In the Indian Bill, 1% of total employee remuneration has been directed as a penalty[16]. Potentially more for large employers, but trivial for small ones. However, the bill doesnot establish clear enforcement mechanisms.

Apart from these nations, Ireland[17] in 2021 introduced the Code of Practice on Right to Disconnect, Belgium[18] in 2022 granted Federal employees disconnect rights, andSpain[19] and Italy[20] have introduced regulations, including disconnect rights to protect their employees in 2018 and 2017, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Current Indian labour laws regulate working hours and overtime through the Factories Act (1948)[21], state-level Shops and Establishments Acts,[22] and the OSH Code (2020),[23] which establish maximum work hours, mandatory rest periods, and overtime pay requirements. However, these statutes were designed for traditional employment and focus primarily on physical workplace presence, failing to address the modern challenge of digital connectivity and after-hours work through smartphones, emails, and remote communication tools.

Empirical evidence including Stanford research showing productivity decline beyond 50 work hours weekly and documented health harms from “telepressure” and “info-obesity” demonstrates this isn’t theoretical but lived reality for millions, particularly in India’s IT/ITeS sector.[24]

This bill identifiesthefundamental issues[25]that digital technology eroded.The boundaries between work andpersonal life have serious consequences on workers’health, productivity, and dignity.While conceptually progressive, the bill remains operationally underdeveloped. Critical deficiencies include absent enforcement mechanisms despite specified penalties, ambiguous overtime provisions contradicting existing labour codes, exclusion of gig workers, and no emergency exceptions for healthcare or critical services. The negotiation-dependent model risks reproducing power imbalances without minimum statutory protections.

Comparatively, India’s bill is more inclusive than Francebut weaker than international models, lacking France’s mandatory union involvement, Portugal’s categorical prohibition, and Australia’s robust Fair Work Commission enforcement.

As a private member’s bill with historically low passage rates, immediate enactment is unlikely.[26] However, its significance transcends passage prospects as it successfully introduces “right to disconnect” into legislative discourse, validates worker struggles against “always-on” culture, and positions the issue for future labour code amendments. The bill demonstrates that while operationally underdeveloped, recognizing rest and dignity as policy problems requiring legal intervention marks meaningful progress in protecting workers in the digital age.

[1]The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 (Bill 51 of 2025).

[2]Private Members Bill, available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/private-members-bill (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[3]The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 (Bill 51 of 2025), s. 7.

[4]Id., s. 18.

[5]Id., s. 3.

[6]Id., s. 8.

[7]Id., s. 12.

[8]The Constitution of India, art. 21.

[9]AIR 1997 SC 3011.

[10]The Constitution of India, art. 39.

[11]Id., art. 42.

[12]Id., art. 43.

[13]France: Right to Disconnect Takes Effect, available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2017-01-13/france-right-to-disconnect-takes-effect/ (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[14]The right to disconnect - or as Portugal calls it - the duty of absence of contact, available at: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/global-workplace-law-and-policy/the-right-to-disconnect-or-as-portugal-calls-it-the-duty-of-absence-of-contact/ (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[15]Australia – Right to Disconnect: A New Era for Australian Workplaces, available at: https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/08/australia-right-to-disconnect-a-new-era-for-austra (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[16]The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 (Bill 51 of 2025), s. 19.

[17]Eurofound, “Right to disconnect: Implementation and impact at company level”, (Publications Office of the European Union, 2023), available at: https://assets.eurofound.europa.eu/f/279033/70e915b9f3/ef23002en.pdf (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[18]Ibid.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Ibid.

[21]The Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948).

[22]Shops and Establishment Acts in India: An Explainer By India Advocacy, available at: https://indiaadvocacy.in/2025/07/18/shops-and-establishment-acts-in-india-an-explainer-by-india-advocacy-july-17-2025/ (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[23]The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (Act No. 37 of 2020).

[24]The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 (Bill 51 of 2025).

[25]Right To Disconnect In India, available at: https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/right-to-disconnect-in-india/ (last visited on January 28, 2026).

[26]Ibid.

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general information purposes only. We endeavour to keep all the information up to date and try our level best to avoid any misinformation or any kind of objectionable content. If you found any misinformation or objectionable contents in this website please report us at editors.ilw@gmail.com