[Answered] India’s legal framework for the ‘right to disconnect’ remains insufficient in an ‘always-on’ economy. Critically evaluate the necessity of formalizing this right to protect worker well-being and fulfill the constitutional mandate for humane conditions of work.

Introduction

In a hyper-connected economy where India ranks second globally in long working hours (ILO), the absence of a legally enforceable ‘right to disconnect’ threatens worker well-being, productivity, and constitutional guarantees of humane work.

Structural transformation of work in the digital economy

1. Digital technologies have dissolved temporal and spatial boundaries of work.
2. Smartphones, emails, and platform labour have created permanent digital presenteeism.
3. Remote and hybrid work blur employer control beyond physical workplaces.

Evidence of worker distress and burnout

1. Excessive connectivity has translated into measurable health and productivity costs.
2. ILO: 51% of Indian workers exceed 49 hours/week.
3. National Mental Health Survey: 10–12% of mental health disorders linked to work stress.
4. 2024 EY employee death highlights the lethal cost of overwork.

Public health and economic implications

1. Burnout is a systemic economic risk, not an individual failure.
2. Chronic stress increases non-communicable diseases (WHO).
3. OECD: countries with regulated working hours show higher per-hour productivity.

Constitutional mandate for humane conditions of work

1. The absence of disconnection rights undermines constitutional morality.
2. Article 21: right to life includes dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin).
3. Articles 42 & 43: humane conditions and social justice.
4. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995): worker health is a State obligation.

Gaps in India’s statutory framework

1. Existing labour codes inadequately address digital exploitation.
2. OSHWC Code, 2020 focuses on ‘workers’, excluding many employees, gig and IT workers.
3. Power asymmetry renders contractual consent illusory.
4. No explicit protection against employer retaliation for non-response.

International legislative precedents

1. Global consensus recognises rest as essential to sustainable productivity.
2. France (2017), Portugal, Ireland, Australia: statutory right to disconnect.
3. Mandatory employer protocols and grievance mechanisms institutionalised.

Risk of inequality and informalisation

1. Without legal safeguards, digital labour deepens precarity.
2. Platform and contractual workers face algorithmic surveillance and extended hours.
3. Violates Article 14 by creating unequal protection across labour categories.

Need for a balanced and flexible legal design

1. Formalisation does not imply rigidity.
2. Emergency exceptions, sector-specific norms, and dispute resolution mechanisms possible.
3. Kerala’s initiative shows sub-national intent but lacks uniformity.

Human capital and demographic dividend perspective

1. The right to disconnect is an investment, not a constraint.
2. Rested workers enhance innovation, safety, and long-term productivity.
3. Prevents demographic dividend from becoming a burnout liability.

Conclusion

As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer argued, labour law must civilise markets; echoing CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, dignity at work requires legal rest—only then can development remain humane and sustainable.