Right to Disconnect proposal by Supriya Sule sets off wide discussion on X: 'Narayana Murthy's worst...'

Comparable laws have been implemented in many countries over the last decade.

NCP–SP MP Supriya Sule on Monday introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha at a time when several major companies were considering extending daily working hours. Sule shared a brief recording of the tabling on X, noting that the proposal aimed to improve overall well-being by easing the strain created by constant digital communication.

The Billdefined the “right to disconnect” as an employee’s ability to refrain from responding to calls, messages or emails beyond official timings, even if an employer attempted to reach them. It stated that declining to engage with work-related communication outside designated hours would not amount to misconduct.

This was not Sule’s first attempt; she had put forward a similar proposal in 2019, prior to the widespread shift to remote work during the pandemic.

Under the text of the 2025 Bill, organisations would be expected to formally negotiate the terms under which any post-shift duties were arranged and compensated. It stated that employees would not be required to answer calls or emails after office hours and could not be penalised for choosing not to be available. Employers could still contact staff during agreed “out-of-work periods”, such as during emergencies.

The Bill sought the creation of Employees’ Welfare Committees to determine these rules. Additionally, workers who voluntarily responded to official communication after hours would be entitled to overtime at the usual rate. A penalty amounting to one per cent of the organisation’s total employee remuneration could apply in cases of non-compliance. It also proposed counselling support and digital detox centres to help individuals cope with prolonged screen-related pressure.

Some social-media users immediately pointed out that the proposal was a Private Member’s Bill, emphasising its limited likelihood of moving forward. One user remarked, “Before you get too excited or sad, please understand that this is a Private Members Bill introduced by MP Supriya Sule. This is NOT a government bill, and these bills never even get discussed, let alone passed.”

Several reactions online reflected sharply differing views. One comment described the Bill as “Narayana Murthy’s worst nightmare”. Another said, “whoever is drafting these ideas clearly invested a heroic amount of time studying european regulations. the intention may be humane, but importing the instincts of a slow continent into a hungry one is how you retire a nation before it has even finished growing.”

Others questioned the timing, suggesting that it drew attention away from more immediate concerns. One post read, “Classic distraction tactic to divert issues from present emergencies like flight cancellations and air pollution.” Another user highlighted the practical challenges, writing, “Well, it'll look good only on papers because we all know the reality, nobody can complain against their boss, can they?…”

Supportive voices also appeared. One person wrote, “Finally, a bill that understands India’s real burnout problem. If this ‘Right to Disconnect’ becomes reality, employees might actually get evenings that belong to them — not their inbox.” Another added, “A much-needed step! Healthy work life boundaries can boost productivity, mental health, and overall quality of life. Hope this becomes the norm across India.”

There were, however, concerns about work dependencies in certain fields. One reaction stated, “Unpopular Opinion: This will destroy the productivity of many offices which require off-hour assistance from executives. Not fair.” A similar sentiment came from someone who commented, “much needed, but I don't see startups following it. and if anyone complains they will loose the job.”

The broader labour context remained relevant. India’s updated labour codes continued to restrict the weekly workload to 48 hours but allowed greater flexibility in distributing those hours across the week. According to Labour Secretary Vandana Gurnani, the approach was intended to allow industries to manage varying operational demands without breaching the weekly limit. She said that while a standard day remained eight hours, companies could allocate longer or shorter shifts as long as the total did not exceed 48 hours, with overtime applying beyond that limit.

Comparable laws have been implemented in many countries over the last decade. France introduced such protections in 2017, followed later by Belgium, Argentina, the Philippines and Australia — the latter extending the safeguard in 2024. Other European nations such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia also adopted policies requiring organisations to set clear expectations about employee availability. New York City explored the idea in 2018, though it did not progress.