The Right to Disconnect: Critiquing Kerala’s Legislative Step Toward Work-Life Balance

[Shubhranshu and Vashmath are students at NALSAR University of Law.]

Work-life balance as an idea has gained traction in recent times across the globe but still raises eyebrows in India today. This is largely attributed to the nature of the labour market, with a high unemployment rate and a clear imbalance between demand and supply, leaving most employees constrained to accept an extended work culture. As a result, the boundary between work and personal time has become blurred.

Research has long shown that doing "more" work at some point does not equal "better" work.  The McKinsey Health Institute reported that around 59% of Indian respondents experience burnout symptoms, while studies by BCG, FICCI and other national bodies put the figure at 58 percent. An Indeed and Censuswide survey in 2024 found that nearly 88 to 90% of employees are contacted outside working hours and many admit that they respond out of fear, thinking that ignoring such communication may harm their career growth. Employers themselves seem to be  aware of the strain, with a large number, around 80%, expressing support for a structured right to disconnect.

It is within this context that a private member bill has been proposed in Kerala on the right to disconnect. The Kerala Right to Disconnect Bill 2025 (Bill) directly takes on the culture of constant availability that characterizes much of today’s corporate, remote and platform-based work. The proposal aims to reduce burnout and restore a healthier balance between professional responsibilities and personal life. Though the issue of work life balance has a culturally rooted connotation, its introduction nonetheless marks a big step in initiating a discourse on the harmful effects of the prevailing always-on work culture in India.

Main Strengths of the Bill

The Bill operationalizes the employee’s right to disengage from work-related communication outside agreed working hours through Section 4. It requires every employer to prepare a written policy that clearly defines working hours, procedures for emergency contact, and the categories of permissible out-of-hours contact. Also, the employer is obligated to communicate it to all the employees.

Another big strength lies in the Bill’s broad applicability. It goes further than the traditional employment relationships to cover telework, remote work and platform-based arrangements in the definition of workplace. Equally noteworthy is the detailed non-exhaustive list of exceptional situations provided in Section 7, in which out-of-hours contact may legitimately happen. This is to strike a balance between protecting employees’ rest and preserving institutional ability to respond to genuine emergencies.  

The Bill also provides an important safeguard through its prohibition on penalization for exercising the right to disconnect. Through this, it attempts to address the pressure that often deter employees from asserting their rights. The inclusion of grievance mechanisms further strengthens the framework by offering employees a channel to report violations and seek redress.

Scope of Improvement

While the Bill is a first step in the right direction, it has certain lacunae that must be addressed to make it more than a symbolic reform. First, it provides for the establishment of a grievance redressal committee but remains silent on how its members will be selected, creating the risk of selection by management on an ad-hoc basis, weakening employees’ voice. Therefore, to inspire trust in the grievance committee, the Bill must provide for election by secret ballot through internal polls or by recognized unions in workplaces where unions exist.

The Bill has provided certain procedural safeguards but it needs to be sharper. Section 6 of the Bill creates a grievance redressal committee and inspection powers but does not set concrete timelines for complaint resolution. In the absence of timelines, workers may find that by the time a complaint is resolved, they have already left the job and suffered career damage. Therefore, the law should impose a statutory deadline for first instance disposal, with limited extensions only for extraordinary circumstances so remedies remain meaningful.

Also, the protections against subtle and systemic penalization must be strengthened. Section 9 forbids dismissal and explicit penalties for exercising the right, but the Bill does not provide an effective mechanism to address indirect reprisals such as denial of promotion, exclusion from key projects or informal ostracism. Two remedies can be explored against such subtle punishment. The first is a statutory presumption, or a reversal of burden, once the employee makes a prima facie case that the adverse action followed the exercise of the right; this model has been proposed by the European Parliament in Article 5.3. The second is mandatory transparency in promotion and appraisal decisions: documented criteria, independent panels for senior promotions, and written justification for adverse outcomes. Together these measures would make it feasible to test whether an adverse act was retaliatory.

Furthermore, another issue is regarding the broad nature of exception clauses, particularly Section 7(viii) of the Bill provides that where an urgent customer-facing incident would cause substantial commercial loss or harm and would be detrimental. This term “substantial commercial loss or harm” can be subjectively interpreted in the hyper-competitive IT, finance, and service sectors, as any delay in responding to a client query, fixing a minor bug, or delivering  a presentation can be framed by management as causing reputational harm with commercially detrimental effects. Furthermore, the employee, lacking access to the company's financial data, cannot disprove the claim of “substantial loss”. A cue can be taken from global best practices like Portugal’s right to disconnect framework legislation which prohibits contact except in cases of force majeure. It does not include a broad "commercial loss" exception, setting a significantly higher bar that excludes routine business risks. Similarly, the exception in Section 7(xv), which  allows the out-of-working hour contact if it is  mentioned in the employee agreement that the employee would be available outside working  hours, such exception risks being used as an opt-out. Also, note that in a labour market with excess supply, most employment contracts in the private sector already contain clauses stipulating that employees may be required to work beyond normal working hours, depending on business exigencies or operational requirements. The right to disconnect must be made a fundamental, non-waivable condition of employment. The Bill should therefore declare any contractual clause purporting to fully waive the right to disconnect void and unenforceable.

The Bill can also embed practical technological safeguards that make compliance easier and reduce the need for confrontational enforcement. One set of measures involves configuring enterprise email and messaging systems so that non-urgent communication sent after working hours is automatically held or delayed until the next working day, a similar measure is implemented by the global giant, Volkswagen, in Germany. It can also be strengthened by introducing a structured traffic light system for all internal communications. Under such a system, messages sent after working hours must be categorized by the sender as green, amber or red, each carrying clearly defined expectations. Green messages would be delivered silently and would require no response until the next working day while amber messages would notify the employee but would leave the response optional. Red messages would be used strictly for genuine emergencies, with the sender required to select a predefined justification. This categorization of communication based on necessity would promote a disciplined out-of-work hours contact, which could be implemented through digital behavioral nudges such as pop-up reminders that would help senders to reflect on whether the issue truly requires immediate attention.

Finally, the Bill must provide for a phased implementation beginning with complete exemption initially for small establishments and new startups as they face stiff competition to survive, and then gradually tightening obligations as the establishments become bigger over a duration, making implementation smooth. This would also reduce the risk of  firms simply relocating  work outside Kerala to avoid the law.

Way Forward

The long-term success of the Bill depends on its implementation, which must overcome the structural barriers such as the power imbalance in India’s labour market where junior staff, contract workers, and those in vulnerable positions think twice before they invoke their rights fearing it will damage their relationship with managers. Therefore, a meaningful way forward requires institutional designs that reduce the personal cost of asserting rights.

Drawing inspiration from Colombia’s model under Article 5(b), an anonymous complaint mechanism must be introduced which would enable employees to report violations without fear of reprisal. This can be complemented by appointing an internal right to disconnect officer, especially in medium and large establishments, similar  to the model  implemented by firms such as  Coexya, which would  provide an alternative, less adversarial route for dispute resolution.

An alternative pathway involves creating positive incentives for compliance. Tax concessions or other financial incentives could be provided to firms that demonstrate adherence to a right to disconnect policy. A parallel approach would include embedding employee wellbeing within India’s broader corporate governance ecosystem. National level integration of the right to disconnect under the Companies Act 2013 through corporate social responsibility metrics could motivate voluntary adoption of a right to disconnect policy. CSR credits or recognition within ESG rankings could be awarded to firms implementing effective disconnection systems encouraging a shift from merely legally compliant to reputational advantage.

Finally, for the Bill to make a meaningful change, a healthy workplace culture must be first promoted through sensitization programs among both employees and employers where the right to disconnect is normalized and legitimized. Even if early implementation yields uneven results, putting out the right in public discourse is itself a step toward recalibrating expectations about rest, productivity and long-term wellbeing. Therefore, even if cultural change cannot be legislated, law can catalyze it and this Bill is an important first step in that direction.