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 of digital communication outside the working hours. Where the power of negotiation fails, employers must unilaterally adopt a charter after consulting employee representative. Rather than imposing an absolute prohibition on after hours communication, the legislation seeks to preserve employees right to rest, family life, and the mental well-being while at the same time allowing working flexibility. The French Model reflects the constitutional values of human dignity and occupational health by recognizing that technological advancements should not erode fundamental labour protections. Since its implementation, many of the organisations have adopted measures such as restricting after-hours emails, delaying message delivery, and establishing digital communication protocols, thereby fostering the healthier work-life boundaries[13].

3.2 – Portugal

Portugal has adopted a comparatively stricter legislative framework through Labour Code amendments introduced by Law No. 83/2021, enacted in response to the widespread adoption of the remote work during Covid-19 Pandemic. The amendments prohibits employers from contacting employees outside normal working hours except in exceptional circumstances, thereby imposing a positive legal obligation to respect employee’s personal time. The law also strengthens protections for remote workers by requiring employers to bear certain additional work-related expenses and by safeguarding employees from discriminatory treatment arising from remote work arrangements. Unlike the French Approach, which primarily encourages the collective bargaining, the Portuguese model establishes direct statutory obligations backed by labour inspections and administrative sanctions. This reflects a stronger regulatory commitment to safeguarding workers psychological well-being, privacy, and work-life balance in an increasingly digital labour market. For India, both jurisdictions demonstrate that the Right to Disconnect can be effectively and efficiently integrated into Labour Law while maintaining employer flexibility through clearly defined exceptions and sector-specific implementation mechanisms[14].

3.3 – Belgium

Belgium was among the first European countries to enforce disconnection laws, adopting a more pragmatic and decentralized model. It took its first step through Belgium’s social cohesion act, 2018 (Loi du 26 mars 2018 portant des dispositions diverses en matière de droit socio-économique)[15], which placed an obligation on employers to hold periodic consultations that did not create any significant changes but also emphasized the mental well-being of the worker/employee of the company. It had limited impact as the compliance was weak. It was further strengthened by the Labour Deal Act of October 2022[16] that came into force in 2023 but required private-sector employers with at least 20 employees to adopt concrete arrangements governing employees’ right to disconnect, as this Belgian model does not prevent the employers from contacting their workforce after work hours; rather, it regulates the workplace culture than creating a blanket ban, as it is a gradual and collective bargaining-oriented approach to the right to disconnect[17].

3.4 – Spain

Spain has moved alongside the fast-paced digital world, acknowledging the need for legislation to protect the employees’ rights and integrating it into its broader framework. Spain gives explicit statutory recognition of Article 88 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights (LOPDGDD), which recognizes the right to disconnect for all workers and public employees, regardless of whether they work remotely[18]. It has strict enforcement under the Labor Infringements and Sanctions System (LISOS, regulated by Royal Decree-Law 5/2000); failure to maintain a disconnection policy constitutes a serious labor infraction and levy of a certain amount of fines[19]. Moreover, it places a positive obligation on the employers to create an internal reviewing committee for a digital disconnection policy that would look over the needs of their employees after consultation. It prevents a culture of “permanent availability” by respecting the employees’ personal lives[20].

3.5 – European Union

At the moment, no binding EU-wide instrument really exists, not yet. As of April 2024, eleven EU member states had already introduced some form of disconnect regulation. The European Parliament, meanwhile, has been pressing for a consistent directive, and a Eurofound study finds that most countries manage the right through collective bargaining. Italy, Portugal, and Slovakia are the unusual cases, where you see direct statutory application. There is a formal EU directive under negotiation. If all goes to plan implementation is expected around 2027 to 2028, or close to that[21].

3.6 – Canada

In Canada the Ontario’s Working for Workers Act, 2021 says that employers above 25 employees have to adopt a written disconnection policy by March each year[22]. Still, the statute leaves a lot of the actual substance to employer discretion, like they can choose the exact shape. The federal government has also signalled interest by floating possible nationwide legislation. But in practice, Ontario is still the only province with binding rules[23].

3.7 – Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, there does not yet have a specific “right to disconnect” law. Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and the Labour Rules, 2015 (which came into force in July 2015)[24] are the fundamentals of labour law in Bangladesh that sets forth standard hours at a maximum of 8 per day and an average of not more than 48 hours in a week; however, overtime is allowed up to a maximum of 60 hours weekly provided every employee has rest intervals and one holiday in a week. De facto, though, none of these provisions tackles the issue — increasingly relevant given the rise of Bangladesh’s ready-made-garment back-office, IT and BPO businesses—of employees being reachable by phone, email or messaging apps outside agreed working hours without additional pay or protection, Global People Strategist[25].

The new Bangladesh Labour (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 amends or modifies 125 sections of the labour law while putting some protection around wages, leave, compensation, union rights, social security, and workplace equality, but it does not contain any right-to-disconnect provision[26]. The second challenge is one of enforcement: Bangladesh already has limits on hours, but labour law compliance is poor widely. Without statutory reform, unlike in France, Portugal or Australia, Bangladeshi workers currently have no means of formal recourse against after-hours work demands.

3.8 – Australia

Australia offers the most developed contemporary model for a statutory ‘Right to Disconnect’. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 inserted provisions into the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) granting employees the right to refuse to monitor, read, or respond to employer communications outside working hours where such refusal is reasonable[27].

The legislation balances employee well-being with business necessities by considering factors such as the reason for contact, urgency, compensation, role, and personal circumstances. Rather than imposing an absolute prohibition, Australia adopts a contextual proportionality test enforced through the Fair Work Commission[28].

3.9 – India

For India, this model is particularly instructive. Indian labour law presently lacks a statutory protection against after-hours digital work despite increasing workplace digitisation and constitutional recognition of dignity under Article 21. While productivity expectations have intensified with remote work, excessive digital connectivity contributes to burnout, stress, and diminished work-life balance[29]. Australia’s framework demonstrates that employee welfare can be protected without undermining organisational flexibility. Instead of a blanket restriction, India could adopt a reasonableness standard applicable across sectors while allowing exceptions for emergencies, managerial responsibilities, and essential services. Such legislation should also incorporate employer policies on digital communication, awareness programmes, and dispute-resolution mechanisms through labour authorities[30]. Consequently, Australia’s experience suggests that the right to disconnect is not merely an employment benefit but an evolving labour right promoting occupational health, dignity, and sustainable productivity, making it a persuasive comparative model for future Indian labour reforms.

Chapter 4: The Indian Scenario

4.1 Rise of Remote and Hybrid Work

The rapid digitalization of the Indian Economy has dismantled traditional spatial boundaries. The shift to remote and hybrid work models has institutionalized continuous accessibility, expanding managerial control over an employee’s lifestyle.

The proliferation of telecommuting, expedited by global health crises, has dismantled traditional office boundaries. This transition effectively merged domestic spaces with professional environments, generating a regulatory void where conventional working hours no longer dictate employee availability[31].

4.2 Corporate Culture and After-Hours Communication

India’s commercial landscape is heavily defined by presenteeism. Functioning as a primary hub for global IT and offshore services, businesses frequently demand uninterrupted virtual presence across diverse time zones[32]. Consequently, professionals face implicit mandates to address work correspondence well beyond stipulated shifts, reinforcing severe power imbalances between management and staff.

4.3 Impact on Employees

Mental Health: Constant connectivity hinders psychological recovery, leading to widespread cognitive depletion. The financial toll on Indian enterprises due to related absenteeism and medical distress is substantial[33].

Burnout: The vast majority of the Indian workforce experiences acute tiredness as a result of an average workweek of more than 46 hours, which is among the highest globally[34].

Family Life: The phenomenon of “telepressure” fractures personal relationships, stripping individuals of essential leisure and restorative time away from screens.

Productivity: Paradoxically, relentless digital engagement degrades output quality, fostering higher error rates, reduced creative capacity, and elevated staff turnover.

Gender Dimension: This culture is particularly detrimental to women, who navigate dual expectations of professional rigor and unpaid domestic responsibilities. These systemic pressures frequently prompt premature exits from the formal workforce[35].

4.4 Judicial Recognition of Work-Life Balance

The constitutional framework provides substantial support, even if Indian courts have not yet defined a statutory right to disconnect. The Supreme Court established that the fundamental right to life encompasses secure and healthy work environments[36]. Furthermore, landmark jurisprudence has affirmed individual privacy and spatial autonomy as intrinsic constitutional guarantees, suggesting that forced digital availability constitutes an unjustifiable invasion of personal liberty[37].

4.5 Legislative Attempts

Right to Disconnect Bill, 2018: A private member’s initiative proposed legal safeguards allowing staff to ignore out-of-hours communications without facing professional retaliation[38].

Parliamentary Discussions: The legislation aimed to establish welfare authorities and mandate organizational communication charters. However, it ultimately lapsed, highlighting systemic political hesitation to constrain corporate agility. Modern consolidated labor codes similarly omit any specific framework for digital work hours[39].

4.6 Practical Challenges in India

Integrating such a mandate faces immense structural hurdles. India’s predominantly informal economy operates outside standard regulatory oversight. Furthermore, applying rigid temporal limits conflicts with the operational demands of the rapidly expanding gig economy and dynamic outsourcing sectors, necessitating a highly nuanced legislative approach[40].

Chapter 5: Need for a Statutory Right to Disconnect

5.1 Arguments Supporting Legal Recognition

Constant connectivity has erased the boundary between the workday and personal time. Employees answering calls and emails at midnight are not “off duty” in any meaningful sense. They remain tethered to work without compensation, recognition, or recovery time. France was the first to legislate against this, requiring firms with over fifty employees to negotiate disconnection policies[41]. Ontario followed, mandating written disconnect policies under its labour code[42].  India has no equivalent; a private member’s bill introduced in 2018 lapsed without debate[43]. The absence of a statute leaves disconnection entirely to employer discretion, and in practice that discretion rarely favours the employee.

5.2 Employer Concerns

Employers resist statutory disconnection on three grounds: global clients operating across time zones, project deadlines that don’t respect a clock, and fear that legal boundaries will be gamed by underperforming staff. These are real operational frictions, not manufactured objections. But they describe scheduling problems, not reasons to deny a legal floor.

5.3 Economic Implications

Burnout has a cost employers rarely price in. Chronic overwork correlates with attrition, absenteeism, and diminished output. The WHO and ILO have jointly attributed an estimated 745,000 deaths in 2016 from ischemic heart disease and stroke to long working hours, classifying extended hours as an occupational health risk[44]. The productivity objection has it backwards: sustained overextension is what erodes output.

5.4 Constitutional Justification

Article 21 anchors this claim. The Supreme Court has read the right to life to include the right to live with dignity and in conditions free from exploitation[45]. Puttaswamy further entrenched privacy, including decisional and informational privacy, as intrinsic to Article 21[46]. After-hours work intrusion is, at bottom, a privacy violation dressed as a professional obligation. Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrary treatment also bears on the unequal bargaining power between employer and employee in fixing “working hours” that exist only on paper.

5.5 Balancing Business Interests and Employee Rights

The core innovation of the French model, mandating negotiation rather than imposing a blanket rule, offers India a template. A statute could require sector-specific disconnect windows, carve-outs for genuine emergencies, and enforcement through labour tribunals rather than blunt criminal sanction.

5.6 Applicability Across Different Sectors

IT: Client time-zone overlap needs structured on-call rosters, not default availability.

Healthcare: Emergency response must remain exempt; administrative communication should not.

Banking: Settlement-cycle deadlines justify narrow, defined exceptions.

Media: Breaking-news cycles require rotating desks, not universal always-on staff.

Government: Should lead by example given its own labour welfare mandate.

Gig Economy: Platform workers, absent employer status altogether, need a separate statutory hook entirely.

Chapter 6

6.1 Need for Comprehensive Legislation

The right to disconnect is not acknowledged by India’s current labour laws and codes, and is not equipped to adapt to the context of digital work[47].Working remotely from home has formed a distorted line between work and personal life[48]. Supriya Sule and Shashi Tharoor[49], two parliamentarians, suggested a bill for voluntary rules at workplaces that were unenforceable and never became law.

6.2 Suggested Features of an Indian Right to Disconnect Law

This proposal sets out clauses that must be incorporated into India’s right to disconnect bill[50]. Such as-

(i) Creating employee welfare bodies those has been responsible for disconnect policies.

(ii) Right to Refuse Without Penalty, Subject to a Reasonableness Standard

(iii) Safeguard employees who reasonably decline after-hours communication.

(iv) Protect employees while exercising their right to disconnect and stop taking any kind of vengeance against the employees.

(v)  Establish workplace-level dispute resolution mechanisms with the option of escalation to the labour authorities and introduce graduated penalties for non-compliance.

(vi)  Permit hardly defined autonomies for essential services.

These provisions draw on the experiences of France, Portugal and Australia, while also relating to the specific employment scenery in India[51].

6.3 Role of Employer

In an employment setting, the responsibility for ensuring the right to disconnect will lie with the employer[52], and the employer should. –

• Find and use technical defaults
• To train managers
• Fair performance metrics
• Prioritise employee well-being
• Prevent an “always-on” work culture.
• A well-established written regulation

6.4 Role of Trade Unions

Trade unions and employee associations have an important role to play for providing the right to disconnect[53]. They are –

(i) Collective bargaining

(ii) Be aware of and support grievances

(iii) Get involved in the award process

(iv) Monitor and report

6.5 Judicial activism

Before any legislation is passed, the Indian Courts have recognized the right to disconnect through judicial interpretation of the doctrine as –

(i) Article 21[54], covering the right to rest, privacy, health, and dignity,

(ii) Public interest litigation, analogous to the Vishaka guidelines for formulating a binding workplace guideline for sexual harassment in the absence of legislation[55].

6.6 Policy Recommendation and Future Outlook

The Committee recommends that a Right to Disconnect Act be passed. They are-

• Establish the Right to Disconnect Bill as legislation
• Establish multilateral task enforcement
• Formulate a framework for the Government
• Extend protections for workers
• Monitor the State initiative
• Start a public awareness campaign
• Establish a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism through the Labour Commissioner

As for digital Employment in India, such as remote work, AI-driven management, and platform employment, are going to be enlarged in future, India must recondition digital labour laws to safeguard digital workers’ health, privacy, and work-life balance[56].

7. Conclusion

The appearance of the Right to Disconnect (RTD) represents a major change in the development of labor law in view of the new realities of the digital workplace. Technological development has not only contributed greatly to efficiency, flexibility, and productivity but also made the lines between one’s professional and private life more unclear than before. Communication outside work was once primarily viewed as something that might happen on rare occasions; however, now it has turned into a normal practice in many industries, thus creating the necessity for permanent contact with employed people. The changes caused by RTD revealed a significant gap in labor legislative framework; the existing legislation was developed for traditional workplaces, and it is not ready enough to deal with the problems of the permanent digital presence of people at the workplace.

Case studies from France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Australia indicate that the right to disconnect has moved beyond theory and has become a real labor right based on values such as dignity of human beings, occupational health, work-life balance, and the need for decent working conditions.[57] Despite different legal approaches adopted by the countries researched, the underlying premise of all of them is that employees must not be punished, directly or indirectly, for the decisions to disconnect after their working hours.

Recommendations

India continues to hold a transitional place in this regard. Although it has a solid constitutional base from which such recognition could be granted, comprehensive legislation on the right to disconnect has yet to be passed. The Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of Articles 14, 19, and especially Article 21 has consistently upheld, among others, the right to dignity, the right to privacy, and the right to a decent life, while labor law has long made it clear that economic development cannot come at the expense of workers’ rights.[58] However, in reality, the absence of protective legislative measures means that employees are increasingly exposed to digital violations in their remote or hybrid jobs, where the office and home spaces are often the same. The emergence of several private members’ bills such as the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, as well as the discussions surrounding the issues of employee burnout and mental health indicate that the problem of the present legislative gap is being recognized.[59]

It must be remembered that the right to disconnect should not be seen as an anti-technology, anti-efficiency, or anti-economic growth principle. On the contrary, this principle symbolizes the autonomy of a person regarding their non-working time. As the French sociologist Dominique Méda states, work should be an important component in life, but it should never take it completely over.[60] This is the basic idea of the Right to Disconnect. The same thought can be found in the work of a famous philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who argues that work should never captivate the space where people can enjoy freedom, thinking, and existence.[61] Thus, the rationale of the right to disconnect is that this right does not aim to limit one’s professional activities but create a possibility for one’s living apart from work. The same idea is being discussed by the International Labour Organization, which states that decent work is not only about employment but also about fulfilling the requirements of working conditions that are acceptable for the health, dignity, family life, and psychological state of the employee.[62]

Thus, the focus of the debate should not just be on “India should provide legal recognition” of the right to disconnect but, more importantly, on how this right could be legally honored. An ideal legal framework must balance the genuine operational needs of the employer and the workers’ right to rest. Legislative recognition of the right must go hand in hand with implementing a mandatory set of workplace policies regarding working hours, effective communication protocols in the digital world, industry specificity in terms of flexibility, exceptions in case of emergencies, and the right to compensation for essential after-hours work, as well as grievance mechanisms ensuring protection of employees’ rights against retaliations.[63]

At the same time, the Right to Disconnect is more than the concept of the ability to turn off electronic devices. It is a guarantee of people’s right to relaxation, performing caring activities, and participating in family and social life, and it ensures the ability to be human in the world of one hundred percent technology. Being a justice-oriented legal system, it cannot recognize the right to work while ignoring the right to avoid work. Ultimately, the recognition of the Right to Disconnect is just an application of the constitutional rights to dignity, equality, privacy, and liberty in the modern era. It is neither a barrier nor an abstract idea. Instead, it recognizes the fact that progress in technology should benefit humankind.

[1] International Labour Organisation, Working Time and Work-Life Balance Around the World (2022).

[2] Code du Travail [Labour Code] arts. L.2242-17 to L.2242-19 (Fr.); European Parliament Resolution of Jan. 21, 2021, with Recommendations to the Commission on the Right to Disconnect, 2021/2181(INL).

[3] WHO & ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury: Global Monitoring Report on Long Working Hours.

[4] Janine Berg et al., World Employment and Social Outlook 2021: The Role of Digital Labour Platforms in Transforming the World of Work, International Labour Organisation (2021).

[5] Eurofound, The Right to Disconnect: Exploring Company Practices (2021); Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017)

[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291125000178?utm_source

[7] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/hr-policies-trends/nearly-78-employees-in-india-experience-job-burnout-says-ukg-study/articleshow/108826598.cms?utm_source

[8] Vishakha v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.

[9] https://www.thehindu.com/education/the-right-to-turn-off-disconnecting-from-indias-overwork-trap/article70416209.ece

[10] https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/india-among-top-overworked-nations-51-employees-work-49-hours-a-week-124092000495_1.html

[11]Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.

[12] Evaluation of ‘Right to Disconnect’ Legislation and Its Impact on Employee’s Productivity. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 99-119. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.53.18-008

[13] Code du Travail [Labour Code] arts. L. 2242-17 to L. 2242-19 (Fr.); Loi 2016-1088 du 8 août 2016 relative au travail, à la modernisation du dialogue social et à la sécurisation des parcours professionnels [Law No. 2016-1088 of Aug. 8, 2016], J.O., Aug. 9, 2016 (Fr.).

[14] Lei n.º 83/2021, de 6 de dezembro [Law No. 83/2021 of Dec. 6, 2021] (Port.); European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), The Right to Disconnect: Exploring Company Practices (2021).

[15]https://www.vow.be/en/node/350

[16]https://remoteworkeurope.eu/insights/right-to-discon nect-europe/8

[17]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjir.70048

[18]https://bm.consulting/en/employment-relations/digita I-disconnection/10

[19]https://remoteworkeurope.eu/insights/right-to-discon nect-europe/11

[20] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/20319 525221105102?utm source=

[21]Ontario’s Working for Workers Act, 2021

[22]https://employsome.com/blog/right-to-disconnect/

[23]Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006; Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015

[24]https://globalpeoplestrategist.com/bangladesh/

[25]Skuad, “Employment Laws in Bangladesh” (2025).

[26]https://juralacuity.com/bangladesh-labour-law/

[27]Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 333M-333N (Austl.).

[28]Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) (Austl.).

[29]Int’l Labour Org., Working Time and Work-Life Balance Around the World (2022).

[30]OECD, How’s Life? 2024: Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis (2024).

[31]Sen, A. (2021). “Digital Labour and the Indian Workplace: The Case for a Right to Disconnect.” Indian Journal of Labour Economics.

[32]https://www.ilo.org/publications/working-time-and-wor k-life-balance-around-world

[33]https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www2.deloit te.com/in/en/pages/risk/articles/mental-health-and-well -being-in-the-workplace.html&authuser=1

[34]https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/reframing-employee-health-moving-beyond-burnout-to-holistic-he alth

[35]https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/conte nt/women-at-work-global-outlook.html

[36]Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 42

[37](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323) 7 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)

[38]https://sansad.in/getFile/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/51%20of%202025%20AS125202592416PM.pdf?source=legislation

[39]https://www.labour.gov.in/whatsnew/occupational-safet y-health-and-working-conditions-code-2020-no-37-2020

[40] E. Pansu, “Right to a Chosen Connection,” Labour Law Journal (2020)

[41]Code du travail art. L2242-17 (Fr.).

[42]Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, § 21.1.1 (Can.)

[43]The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2018, Bill No. 1 of 2019 (India) (lapsed).

[44]Frank Pega et al., Global, Regional, and National Burdens of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke Attributable to Exposure to Long Working Hours, 154 Env’t Int’l 106595 (2021).

[45]Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 161 (India).

[46]K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

[47]The Legal Quorum, “The Right to Disconnect in India: A Constitutional Imperative in the Age of Digital Labour” (2026). The Right to Disconnect in India: A Constitutional Imperative in the Age of Digital Labour -The Legal Quorum

[48]T. Rasool, N.F. Warraich and M. Sajid, “Examining the Impact of Technology Overload at the Workplace: A Systematic Review” (2022) 12

[49]The Right to Disconnect Bill 2018, Bill No. 211 of 2018 (Lok Sabha, India); ThePrint, “What’s in Supriya Sule’s Right to Disconnect Bill & how have other countries tackled work-life balance” (December 2025); Supriya Sule, “Right to Disconnect,” supriyassule.in.2317ls(E).p65

[50]Insights IAS, “Right to Disconnect Bill 2018”

[51]Legislative Research data on the low rate of private member’s bill discussion in the Lok Sabha.Right to Disconnect Bill 2018 – INSIGHTS IAS – Simplifying UPSC IAS Exam Preparation 5 Library of Congress, “France: Right to Disconnect Takes Effect” (2017France: Right to Disconnect Takes Effect Library of Congress

[52]Australian Public Service Commission, “Guidance on the Right to Disconnect in the Public Sector” (2024).Guidance on the right to disconnect in the public service

[53]7 Fair Work Ombudsman (n 12); Global Compliance News, “Australia: Right to disconnect – Working 9 to [to be determined…]?” (2024), on Fair Work Commission stop orders and civil penalties. Australia: Right to disconnect – Working 9 to [to be determined…]? – Lexology

[54]K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

[55]Supriya Sule, “Right to Disconnect” (n 3); Insights IAS (n 5). Supriya Sule reintroduces ‘Right to Disconnect’ bill, stirring debate on after-hours

[56]The Legal Quorum, “The Right to Disconnect A Constitutional Imperative in the Age of Digital Labour” (2026). The Right to Disconnect in India: A Constitutional Imperative in the Age of Digital Labour -The Legal Quorum

[57] Code du Travail (France) art L2242-17; Belgium Labour Deal Act 2022; Spain Organic Law 3/2018 on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights, art 88; Portugal Labour Code (Law No. 83/2021); Australia, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023.

[58] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Consumer Education & Research Centre v Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42; Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

[59] The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2018 (Private Member’s Bill); The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 (proposed); International Labour Organization, Working Time and Work-Life Balance Around the World (2022).

[60] Dominique Méda, The Future of Work: The Meaning and Value of Work in Europe (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019).

[61] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (2nd edn, University of Chicago Press 1998).

[62] International Labour Organization, Decent Work Agenda; ILO, Working Time and Work-Life Balance Around the World(2022).

[63] discussion on India’s proposed Right to Disconnect framework; ILO “Decent Work” principles; Lexology, “India’s Proposed Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025”; Anjali Roy, “Right to Disconnect: A Cornerstone of a Modern Humane Economy,” DOI: 10.52152/gg4r9h72.