By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A private member’s bill, the “Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025,” was recently introduced in the Lok Sabha, proposing that employees be allowed to refrain from work-related communications outside of official work hours and holidays. This bill, inspired by similar legislation in Australia, aims to establish an Employees’ Welfare Authority and addresses concerns about work-life balance, as a survey indicated widespread after-hours communication and pressure to respond. The survey also revealed generational differences and employer concerns about talent retention, with the majority supporting disconnect policies, while simultaneously fearing a drop in productivity. This move comes amidst a larger debate about work hours in India, fueled by discussions around extended workweeks by industry leaders.
Read the original article here
**No calls, emails beyond official work hours: Right to Disconnect Bill introduced in Indian Parliament**
So, the “Right to Disconnect” Bill has been introduced in the Indian Parliament. What does this actually mean? Basically, it’s about giving employees the right to not answer calls or emails outside of their official working hours. Think about it – no more work-related pings disrupting your evenings or weekends. Seems pretty straightforward, right?
But, and here’s where it gets interesting, there are definitely some potential hurdles. A common concern, and a valid one, is how this will actually play out in the workplace. The fear is that some employees, the ones eager to please or maybe a little too ambitious, might still feel pressured to respond, effectively undermining the whole point of the law. This creates a kind of “slippery slope” where the right to disconnect becomes a right in name only. It is like the saying goes, “in every group, there is one…”
Then there’s the question of enforcement. India has a reputation, fairly or unfairly, for having laws that aren’t always diligently enforced. We can find a similar sentiment expressed about the judiciary. If the bill becomes law, will it be rigorously applied, or will it be another piece of legislation that gets overlooked in practice? Moreover, many people are not excited about the bill.
Now, let’s talk about the practicalities. The IT sector, for example, often has a less rigid approach to work hours. It is common to have flexible working conditions. Some companies don’t care if you work eight hours, regardless of the time you choose. So, how does a “Right to Disconnect” bill fit into that kind of setup? And what about roles that inherently require availability outside of standard hours, like providing after-hours support? Standby pay for this would have been a great idea.
Another important aspect, and something many people are quick to point out, is that the bill is unlikely to be the silver bullet. While this may have the potential to protect those working 10-11 hours per day, the bill won’t be as effective if people are not getting paid for overtime. Overtime payment is critical. The idea of unpaid overtime is a major problem, and some think mandatory overtime payment, with real financial penalties for companies that violate the rules, might be a more effective way to prevent exploitation. This puts the onus on the employers.
There are also the challenges of global work, especially in fields like IT. A lot of Indian professionals work for companies based in other countries and need to attend meetings at midnight or early hours to coordinate with the managers. The time differences can create a blurred line between work and personal time, and this bill may not fully address the problem.
Of course, the bill itself is not a complete solution. It does not mean a ban on emails. It is not banning emails. It’s about giving employees the *choice* to not respond after hours, and that’s a crucial distinction. It’s about respecting boundaries and protecting the employee’s personal time. The idea is that not responding to calls or emails outside of work hours shouldn’t negatively impact your performance reviews.
Ultimately, whether the bill succeeds or fails will depend on a lot of factors: how it’s implemented, how seriously it’s taken by employers, and the willingness of employees to assert their rights. If the law has to work then workers should stand up for themselves. The law should protect the employee’s time, privacy, and health.