OPINION | Right to Disconnect: A well-intentioned but misplaced proposal

right to disconnect

A Private Member’s Bill introduced in Parliament, seeking to provide a “Right to Disconnect”, is probably well intentioned, but it reflects a poor understanding of the stratification of India’s labour markets and the dynamics of a growing, vibrant economy.

Protection is undoubtedly necessary to balance free-market excesses when they erode basic human rights and create conditions that lead to exploitation. However, the easiest response is often to extend protections to those who are already well protected, thereby creating the illusion of addressing a humanitarian concern. It is far more difficult—but far more necessary—to meaningfully improve the conditions of those genuinely in distress due to weak implementation of existing labour laws on the ground.

I recall the early years of my career at Tata Steel. Workers enjoyed conditions, compensation, and benefits that were simply unsustainable in a competitive free market. This was true even for the non-unionised workforce. Prior to 1991, when India was a protected economy and steel prices were regulated, it did not matter that it took 70,000 workers to produce the same amount of steel that just 2,000 workers at Nucor Steel could produce.

Everything changed after liberalisation in 1991, when steel prices collapsed. Dr J.J. Irani, then Managing Director of Tata Steel, took several bold decisions that enabled the company to recover. These included large-scale automation and the outsourcing of activities that had traditionally been performed in-house.

Outsourcing is as much about divesting non-core activities as it is about transferring responsibility for work discipline and welfare to contractors who understand how to operate within the system. It is the workers employed by these contractors—who often function at the margins of formal protection—who require enhanced safeguards, rather than already privileged segments of the workforce.

India today is predominantly a services economy, and most discussions around work–life balance originate in this sector. Even within this relatively privileged white-collar workforce, a majority have fixed working hours similar to unionised factory workers. They perform clearly defined tasks requiring minimal decision-making and are neither expected to remain connected nor to think about work-related issues after hours.

Consequently, much of the debate on work–life balance actually concerns those engaged in knowledge work—primarily individuals working directly on client-facing projects or in managerial roles. To assume that these groups require statutory protection in the form of a right to disconnect is, at best, naive.

The nature of knowledge work does not lend itself to a rigid eight- or nine-hour framework. If critical customer issues, product launches, or system failures are deferred to the next working day, the damage could be severe, eroding the competitive edge that businesses need to remain relevant. Importantly, such after-hours engagement tends to be the exception rather than the norm.

Concerns around mental health resulting from excessive work pressure do arise periodically, often intensifying after a specific incident. However, these debates typically fade after a brief media cycle. In a global economy characterised by intense competition, work pressure is inevitable. It is incumbent upon management to ensure that this does not deteriorate into a toxic environment marked by unreasonable expectations.

I would argue that such toxic workplaces exist in limited pockets and are exceptions rather than the norm. Most of the employees whom this proposed legislation seeks to protect are unlikely to value a formal right to disconnect. Moreover, while the Bill does not completely prohibit after-hours communication, the compliance process it envisages is cumbersome and undermines the agility required in a competitive market.

Not every problem warrants fresh regulation or the creation of new statutory rights. In many cases, market dynamics are better equipped to address these challenges. If work–life balance is genuinely valued, companies that neglect it will lose talent to competitors who manage it better.

Attempting to design policy through a one-size-fits-all approach—aimed at addressing edge cases arising from a few incompetent managers or toxic workplaces—risks doing more harm than good, ultimately undermining economic efficiency and competitiveness.