Context

• The introduction of the Right to Disconnect Bill as a private member’s bill marks a significant moment in Indian labour law, particularly in the context of the recent consolidation of labour regulation through the four labour codes.
• These codes govern working hours, overtime, and employer control, reflecting a framework designed primarily for physical workplaces.
• The Bill responds to the growing reality of digital work, where technological connectivity has blurred the boundaries between professional and personal life.
• Despite acknowledging this transformation, the Bill continues to operate within a time-based regulatory framework, giving rise to unresolved questions regarding the definition of work, the scope of the proposed right, and its constitutional character.

Definitional Gaps in the Concept of Work

• A central limitation of the Right to Disconnect Bill lies in the absence of a definition of work in the context of the digital economy.
• Indian labour law has traditionally been grounded in physical presence and fixed working hours.
• While the Bill grants employees the right to refrain from responding to work-related communications beyond prescribed working hours, it does not clarify whether after-hours digital engagement constitutes work.
• This omission becomes particularly significant when read alongside the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which continues to regulate working hours and overtime.
• The Code prescribes limits on working time but does not expressly address digital engagement outside formal hours.
• By regulating communication without integrating it into the legal framework governing working time, the Bill creates a conceptual gap.
• As a result, the right to disconnect risks functioning as a behavioural norm rather than a binding labour standard, weakening its enforceability. 

Comparative Perspectives on Employer Control and Working Time

• Comparative analysis highlights these shortcomings more clearly. In the European Union, judicial interpretations of working time have evolved to focus on employer control rather than physical activity alone.
• Decisions such as SIMAP, Jaeger, and Tyco adopted an expansive understanding of working time, including on-call duties, standby periods, and other forms of availability where the employer exercises control, even in the absence of active work.
• This jurisprudence reflects the principle that an employee’s time belongs to the employer whenever autonomy is constrained.
• France adopts a similar approach by clearly demarcating working time and rest time, treating periods of availability under employer control as working time.
• Digital communication is integrated through collective bargaining, allowing sector-specific flexibility while maintaining statutory protection.
• Germany likewise enforces strict limits on working hours and mandatory rest periods.
• These jurisdictions illustrate a shared engagement with a fundamental question: when does an employee’s time become the employer’s time?

Scope and Enforceability of the Right in Indian Labour Law

• Within the Indian context, this question remains unresolved.
• The labour codes combine mandatory statutory provisions, such as limits on working hours, with contractual terms negotiated through employer policies and agreements.
• The Right to Disconnect Bill does not clarify whether the right is a mandatory labour standard or one that can be modified through contract.
• This ambiguity weakens the normative force of the right and risks uneven application across sectors and workplaces.
• Without clear statutory grounding, the right may remain dependent on employer discretion rather than legal obligation.

Constitutional Dimensions of the Right to Disconnect

• The Bill also raises important constitutional concerns.
• The freedom to disengage from work bears a clear relationship with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• The ability to disconnect directly implicates individual autonomy, dignity, and mental well-being, all of which have been recognised as components of Article 21.
• However, the Bill does not articulate this constitutional foundation or explain how such guarantees are to be realised within the employment relationship.
• Consequently, it remains unclear whether the right to disconnect is purely statutory or reflective of a deeper constitutional commitment to personal autonomy at work.

Conclusion

• The Right to Disconnect Bill recognises that digital technologies have blurred the traditional boundaries between working time and personal life.
• But it does not adequately explain how this shift should be accommodated within the existing legal framework governing working hours, overtime, and employer control.
• Comparative experience demonstrates that the right to disconnect becomes effective only when digital availability is treated as working time, a step yet to be taken in Indian labour law.
• The Bill also leaves unresolved whether the right carries a constitutional dimension rooted in Article 21, allowing for divergent interpretations.
• For these reasons, the Bill is best understood as the beginning of a broader legal and constitutional conversation, one that Indian labour law jurisprudence will eventually need to address.