INTRODUCTION
Consider a scenario: it is 11 PM on a Sunday. An employee, having completed a long working week, is spending time with family when a work-related communication arrives from their manager requesting an urgent update on the following day’s presentation. The employee faces an immediate dilemma concerning professional obligations versus personal time, compounded by concerns about career implications of delayed responses.
The tragic death of Anna Sebastian Perayil, a 26-year-old chartered accountant employed by Ernst & Young, in July 2024, brought national attention to workplace stress and excessive working hours. According to her mother’s public letter, Perayil succumbed to what was characterised as overwhelming work pressure involving persistent late-night work and constant availability requirements.[1] This incident catalysed public discourse regarding workplace conditions in corporate India.
The Right to Disconnect represents a legal principle that has gained recognition in several jurisdictions internationally. India currently stands at a juncture where it must evaluate whether to implement similar legal protections or continue with the existing regulatory framework concerning after-hours work communications. This analysis examines the legal, constitutional, and policy considerations surrounding this issue.
THE CURRENT STATE OF DIGITAL WORK CULTURE IN INDIA
Empirical data reveals concerning trends in Indian workplace practices. Research conducted by Deloitte India indicates that 88% of Indian employees report receiving work-related communications outside official working hours, while 85% experience such interruptions during sick leave or holidays.[2] Furthermore, 79% of surveyed workers expressed concerns that non-responsiveness to after-hours communications could negatively impact their career progression.
The information technology sector presents particularly acute manifestations of this phenomenon. Survey data indicate that 72% of IT professionals regularly exceed the statutory 48-hour workweek prescribed under the Factories Act 1948 [3]and relevant state-level Shops and Establishments Acts, with 25% reporting weekly working hours exceeding 70 hours.[4]
Mental health implications constitute a significant dimension of this issue. Research published in the International Journal of Indian Psychology found that 49% of Indian workers report that workplace stress adversely affects their mental health.[5] The continuous connectivity facilitated by digital technologies has been characterised as creating a state of perpetual professional obligation. French politician Benoit Hamon, in debates preceding France’s implementation of disconnect legislation, described employees as being ‘attached by a kind of electronic leash like a dog’ even after departing the physical workplace.[6]
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE RIGHT TO DISCONNECT
The Right to Disconnect constitutes a legal entitlement permitting employees to refuse engagement with work-related communications, including emails, telephone calls, and instant messages, outside designated working hours without facing adverse employment consequences. This principle acknowledges that continuous availability requirements may compromise employee well-being and work-life balance.
The legal framework recognises that technological capacity for constant communication does not establish an obligation for perpetual availability. The right establishes clear temporal boundaries demarcating professional obligations from personal time, thereby protecting employees from workplace cultures predicated on continuous connectivity, which have been associated with burnout and depression.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Australia provides a relevant comparative example through its recent legislative reforms. In August 2024, Australia enacted the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2024,[7] which incorporated provisions establishing a right to disconnect. The Australian framework represents part of a broader international trend. France implemented similar protections through amendments to its Labour Code in 2016, while Belgium enacted comparable legislation in 2022.[8] The Australian legislation additionally addressed worker classification issues affecting gig economy participants and casual employees.
The Australian implementation included transitional provisions, granting small businesses until August 2025 to achieve compliance. This phased approach acknowledges the operational adjustments required for implementation while maintaining the fundamental protection of employee welfare.
CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS IN INDIAN LAW
The Indian Constitution provides substantial jurisprudential foundations for recognising a right to disconnect. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.’[9] The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision expansively to encompass various dimensions of dignified existence, including mental and physical well-being.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India,[10] The Supreme Court held that the right to live with human dignity derives from Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39(e) and 42. The Court observed that the health and strength of workers constitute essential components of the right to life under Article 21. This interpretative framework establishes that workplace conditions affecting employee health fall within constitutional protection.
Article 39(e) directs the State to secure ‘that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.’[11]Article 42 mandates that ‘The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work.’[12]
In CESC Ltd v Subash Chandra Bose,[13]The Supreme Court affirmed that health forms an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The Court stated that preservation of health constitutes a matter of public interest and State responsibility.
Article 23 prohibits ‘traffic in human beings and beggars and other similar forms of forced labour,’[14] with violations constituting offences punishable under the law. Where employees face economic pressure to respond to work communications at all hours, potential implications under Article 23 warrant consideration, as economic coercion may constitute a form of forced labour.
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES AND POLICY PROPOSALS
Member of Parliament Supriya Sule introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill in the Lok Sabha on 6 December 2024.[15] This represents her second legislative attempt on this issue, following a similar private member’s bill introduced in 2018 that proposed penalties equivalent to 1% of total employee compensation for companies violating after-hours communication boundaries.
The current bill proposes that companies employing more than 10 workers adopt written policies on after-hours communication. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a signatory, provides in Article 24 that ‘Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.’[16]
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS
Analysis of the economic implications suggests potential benefits for employers from implementing disconnect policies. Industry projections indicate potential departure of up to 2.2 million IT sector employees due to burnout-related factors. Employee replacement costs are estimated at 1.5 to 2 times annual salary.[17] Excessive working hours and perpetual availability requirements have been associated with increased error rates, reduced innovation capacity, and diminished work quality.
Survey data indicate that 80% of Indian employers recognise that robust work-life balance policies reduce employee attrition.[18] Adequate rest periods have been demonstrated to enhance productivity, creativity, and employee engagement. Jurisdictions that have implemented disconnect policies have not reported corresponding decreases in productivity; some studies suggest improved outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Disconnect addresses fundamental issues of worker dignity and well-being in contemporary employment relationships. The principle recognises employees as persons with legitimate interests beyond professional obligations, including family responsibilities and health requirements. Continuous availability requirements represent an unsustainable employment model with documented adverse health consequences.
The circumstances surrounding Anna Sebastian Perayil’s death raise significant questions regarding acceptable workplace practices and the adequacy of current legal protections. India possesses constitutional foundations and international obligations supporting the implementation of disconnect protections. The path forward requires legislative action, cultural transformation in workplace practices, and recognition that employee well-being constitutes an essential component of sustainable employment relationships rather than an optional consideration.
Author(s) Name: Thrisha H Suvarna (St Joseph’s College of Law, Bangalore)
References:
[1] . ‘Mother of EY Employee Who Died Pens Letter to Chairman, Says “Workload” Killed Her’ (NDTV, 19 September 2024) <https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mother-of-ey-employee-who-died-pens-letter-to-chairman-says-her-daughter-was-overwhelmed-with-work-6614082> accessed 4 February 2026
[2] Deloitte India, Women at Work 2024: A Global Outlook (Deloitte 2024) 15-18
[3] Factories Act 1948, s 51
[4] ‘72% of IT Professionals Work Beyond 48 Hours Weekly: Survey’ (The Economic Times, 12 March 2024) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/72-of-it-professionals-work-beyond-48-hours-weekly-survey/articleshow/108421567.cms> accessed 4 February 2026
[5] Sharma R and Gupta N, ‘Workplace Stress and Mental Health: An Empirical Study of Indian Employees’ (2023) 11(2) International Journal of Indian Psychology 234, 241
[6] Benoit Hamon, quoted in ‘France Moves Closer to Making “Right to Disconnect” From Work Emails a Reality’ (The Guardian, 12 May 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/12/french-right-to-disconnect-law> accessed 4 February 2026
[7] Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2024 , inserting s 333J-333N into the Fair Work Act 2009
[8] . ‘Belgium Gives Workers Right to Disconnect After Work Hours’ (BBC News, 17 February 2022) <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60401192> accessed 4 February 2026
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[10] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
[11] Constitution of India 1950, art 39(e)
[12] Constitution of India 1950, art 42
[13] CESC Ltd v Subash Chandra Bose (1992) 1 SCC 441
[14] Constitution of India 1950, art 23
[15] ‘Supriya Sule Introduces Right to Disconnect Bill in Lok Sabha’ (The Hindu, 6 December 2024) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supriya-sule-introduces-right-to-disconnect-bill-in-lok-sabha/article68964789.ece> accessed 4 February 2026
[16] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III), art 24
[17] . ‘India May See Up to 2.2 Million IT Sector Exits Due to Burnout’ (Business Standard, 23 August 2024) <https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/india-may-see-up-to-2-2-million-it-sector-exits-due-to-burnout-124082300891_1.html> accessed 4 February 2026
[18] Mercer India, Health on Demand Report 2024 (Mercer 2024) 22
