Over the past week, discussions have erupted on social media and HR forums about the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, introduced by an MP in the Lok Sabha. This proposed law, which is still under consideration, aims to make it illegal for employers to penalise employees for not responding to work calls, messages, or emails outside of official working hours. This is a boundary that many Indian white-collar workers have long desired. The Bill would require organisations to publish clear policies on after-hours communication, prohibit retaliation against employees who exercise the right to disconnect, and could potentially create an Employees' Welfare Authority to oversee compliance and handle complaints.
The response from employees has been intense and multifaceted. Many professionals have expressed a deep sense of validation, saying that they've long felt guilt or fear for not responding to late messages, particularly in organisations where an "always-on" culture is the norm. Stories have emerged of health issues, strained family relationships, and quiet resignations linked to constant digital pressure. However, some middle managers have expressed anxiety and resistance, worrying that strict disconnect rights might disrupt client expectations, slow decision-making cycles, and complicate global coordination. HR professionals are caught between empathy for employee wellbeing and pressure to maintain productivity, leading to debates about whether the Bill would empower staff or inadvertently hamper fast-paced sectors.
From a compliance and leadership standpoint, if the Right to Disconnect Bill passes, it would mark a significant shift in Indian employment law, similar to statutory weekly offs or maternity leaves. Even though it's still in draft form, the Bill's implications touch on employer obligations under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and could eventually require HR policy overhauls. This could involve setting formal hours of engagement, disciplinary boundaries, and complaint resolution frameworks. Leaders must anticipate that this won't be just a legal checkbox but a governance and culture issue that interacts with employee contracts, performance appraisal norms, and digital communication protocols. Firms may need to introduce new metrics for compliance reporting, train managers on respectful after-hours boundary setting, and instill clearer definitions of "official working hours" across geographies and functions. For compliance officers, the coming months could mean drafting policies, updating handbooks, and engaging legal counsel to ready organisations for statutory mandates that once seemed foreign to Indian workplaces.
What safeguards should HR build into disconnect policies so employees feel safe to enforce them? How should companies measure productivity if after-hours responses are no longer a performance signal?
The response from employees has been intense and multifaceted. Many professionals have expressed a deep sense of validation, saying that they've long felt guilt or fear for not responding to late messages, particularly in organisations where an "always-on" culture is the norm. Stories have emerged of health issues, strained family relationships, and quiet resignations linked to constant digital pressure. However, some middle managers have expressed anxiety and resistance, worrying that strict disconnect rights might disrupt client expectations, slow decision-making cycles, and complicate global coordination. HR professionals are caught between empathy for employee wellbeing and pressure to maintain productivity, leading to debates about whether the Bill would empower staff or inadvertently hamper fast-paced sectors.
From a compliance and leadership standpoint, if the Right to Disconnect Bill passes, it would mark a significant shift in Indian employment law, similar to statutory weekly offs or maternity leaves. Even though it's still in draft form, the Bill's implications touch on employer obligations under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and could eventually require HR policy overhauls. This could involve setting formal hours of engagement, disciplinary boundaries, and complaint resolution frameworks. Leaders must anticipate that this won't be just a legal checkbox but a governance and culture issue that interacts with employee contracts, performance appraisal norms, and digital communication protocols. Firms may need to introduce new metrics for compliance reporting, train managers on respectful after-hours boundary setting, and instill clearer definitions of "official working hours" across geographies and functions. For compliance officers, the coming months could mean drafting policies, updating handbooks, and engaging legal counsel to ready organisations for statutory mandates that once seemed foreign to Indian workplaces.
What safeguards should HR build into disconnect policies so employees feel safe to enforce them? How should companies measure productivity if after-hours responses are no longer a performance signal?