Authors: Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Afsana Akhter, Sneha Batav,Yashu, Khushi Solanki, Mishra Garvita Chapter 1 Background of the Study The digital transformation of workplaces has fundamentally altered employment relationships by enabling continuous communication through emails, messaging, applications, and virtual collaboration platforms. Although these technologies have enhanced organizational flexibility and productivity, they have simultaneously blurred the distinction between the personal and professional life. The increasing expectation that the employees remain purely available beyond the prescribed working hours has generated concerns regarding work-life balance, mental-health, and occupational well-being. International labour standards increasingly recognize that decent work extends beyond the wages and encompasses reasonable working hours, rest, and the protection of worker’s dignity and health[1]. Meaning and Evolution of the Right to Disconnect The Right to Disconnect refers to an employee’s entitlement to disengage from work-related communications outside working hours without suffering adverse employment consequences. The concept gained statutory recognition in France through the Labour Code reforms of year 2016 and has subsequently influenced labour reforms in jurisdictions including Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Australia[2]. It reflects the evolution of labour law from regulating the physical workplaces to addressing challenges arising from digital employment. Growth of Digital Work and “Always-On” Employment The expansion of remote and hybrid work, particularly following the Covid-19 pandemic, has accelerated an “always-on” work culture. Digital connectivity has improved operational efficiency but has also extended working time beyond contractual limits. The ILO and WHO have reported that long working hours significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and premature mortality, demonstrating that excessive digital availability has become both a labour rights and public health concern[3]. Research Question Should India recognise and statutorily enforce a Right to Disconnect to protect employees from after-hours work, while balancing the legitimate interests of employers in a digitally connected workplace? Research Objective This study aims to examine the concept of the Right to Disconnect, analyse the adequacy of India’s legal framework, evaluate comparative legal approaches, and propose suitable legislative reforms. Research Hypothesis The study hypothesis that the existing Indian Labour Law framework inadequately protects employees from after-hours work obligations and that a statutory Right to Disconnect would better safeguard employee well-being while balancing legitimate employer interests. Scope of the Study The research focuses on the legal regulation of after-hours work in India through constitutional principles, labour legislation, judicial developments, international labour standards, and comparative jurisprudence. It does not examine contractual or senior-specific workplace policies in detail. Research Methodology The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology based on the primary sources, including constitutional provisions, labour statutes, judicial decisions, and international instruments, supplemented by peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, and the available scholarly literature. Literature Review Existing scholarship demonstrates that digital technologies have redefined the temporal boundaries of the employment. Janine Berg and other ILO Scholars argue that the digitalization requires labour regulations to protect worker’s autonomy and health[4]. Eurofound’s research similarly concludes that the Right to Disconnect promotes work-life balance without significantly reducing organizational productivity[5]. In India, scholarly discourse acknowledges the constitutional relevance of privacy and dignity following Justice K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, yet highlights the absence of a dedicated statutory framework governing after-hours digital work. This study contributes to the existing literature by critically examining whether comparative legal models can be adapted to the Indian constitutional and labour law framework.   Chapter 2: Conceptual and Legal Framework of the Right to Disconnect Employees, gig workers and other wage earners are often expected to work beyond prescribed hours, reflecting the growing culture of overwork. Many continue to comply for fear of losing their jobs, highlighting the need for a right to disconnect that protects workers from an “always-on” culture. Workplace stress has become a major concern in India, with many employees experiencing anxiety, depression, and burnout. Studies consistently identify work-related stress as a key factor affecting employees’ mental health and well-being[6]. Poor work-life balance has left nearly 78% of Indian employees experiencing burnout, one of the highest rates globally[7].  In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997)[8], the Supreme Court of India held that workplace dignity is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21. Although the case concerned sexual harassment, its broader principle is equally relevant: employers cannot exercise control in a way that undermines an employee’s dignity, autonomy, or personal well-being. Several countries, including France, Australia, Belgium, Italy and Portugal, have recognised the right to disconnect by allowing employees to refuse after-hours communication without adverse consequences. In India, where the formal and informal sectors coexist and no clear demarcation for office hours exist for a large share of workforce. India is among the world’s most overworked nations, with the average employee working 46.7 hours a week according to the ILO[9].  Although the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 regulates working hours and safety, it remains silent on after-hours digital work, highlighting the need for dedicated legislation.[10] The right also finds support in Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Courts have repeatedly expanded the ambit of Article 21 by recognizing the dignity, health, livelihood, and privacy of an individual. It is further supported by Articles 39(e) and 42, which promote humane working conditions. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995)[11], The SC held that workers are entitled to safe and healthy working conditions under Article 21. Moreover, Pansu suggests that a “right to a chosen connection” may be a more flexible and practical alternative to the current “Right to Disconnect” framework as this better protects employee autonomy by allowing workers to decide when and how to engage with digital work tools rather than imposing a blanket disconnection[12]. Chapter 3: Comparative Jurisdictions 3.1 – France France is widely recognized as the pioneer of the Right to Disconnect, becoming the first country to provide statutory recognition through the Labour Law (Loi n 2016-1088), commonly known as the EI Khomri Law. Effective from 1 January 2017, Article L. 2242-17 of the French Labour Code requires enterprises with at least fifty employees to negotiate policies governing the use