The ‘YesMadam’ Case: India’s Need for Right to Disconnect

seo835
Sep 4
5 min read

Introduction

India’s workforce is among the most stressed and overburdened globally. As India’s workforce is projected to surpass 100 crore by 2030. Its workforce constitutes a quarter of the workforce globally. The absence of safeguards against over work and work pressure at workplace leave millions vulnerable to employer exploitation. In a recent incident YesMadam, a Noida based home salon services company, had to face huge backlash. It was allegedly terminating employees who reported workplace stress in an internal survey. Later they announced a superficial “de-stress leave” policy. YesMadam is surely not the only case but one in many cases that promote toxic work culture. Around the same time, Daksh Gupta, CEO of San Francisco based AI startup Greptile, was found publicly defending the harsh working environment with a 14 hour work day and six day work week policy at his company on social media. These incidents bring to light the disregard towards severe mental and physical toll of over work on employees at workspaces.

The Crisis of Overwork in Modern India

The culture of over work in India began in 1991 after the economy opened in 1991. Most companies expect employees to work beyond their limits This is done in name of growth and higher productivity. Many industry leaders support long work schedules as can be seen from the 70 hour work week policy. Many people argue that such long work hours are not healthy as they lead to stress and diseases. The culture of normalising over work needs not just progressive labour reform but needs extensive constitutional reforms too.

India has not made right to disconnect a constitutional priority hence leading to failed implementation. Our legal system framework continues to tolerate exploitative work cultures despite clear violations of fundamental rights. The judiciary has repeatedly emphasised on the guarantee of “life and personal liberty” under Article 21. Life and personal liberty also include right to health, leisure and freedom from exploitative work culture. It takes into account both physical and mental exploitation. The expectation of constant availability of employees leads to work intruding upon personal time through continuous digital communication. This constant digital availability constitutes a direct infringement of their constitutional right to a dignified life.

Constitutional Rights vs. Workplace Realities

The current regulatory regime has major shortcomings when it comes to meeting constitutional requirements. The Factories Act, 1948, while provides some protections at the same time unconstitutionally discriminates. It excludes white collar and service sector workers that leads to violation of equality guarantee under Article 14. State level Shops and Establishments Act remain poorly enforced, making a mockery of’ directive for just and humane working conditions under Article 42. Judicial precedents have always recognised overwork as a form of exploitation. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. UOI, the Supreme Court expanded on the interpretation of “forced labour” under Article 23. The new interpretation was inclusive of economic coercion that forces workers to accept extremely long work hours. It can be easily inferred that India’s constitutional framework already provides the basis for right to disconnect. However, what can be seen lacking is the legislative’s will to codify these protections.

Past attempts at reforms have failed not due to legal shortcomings but political indifference. The 2018 Right to Disconnect Bill, which would have operationalised constitutional labour protections by penalising after hours work demands, was allowed to lapse without debate. Current proposals for standardised work hours face resistance from corporate interests. Although, there are clear judicial precedent that welfare legislation should receive priority. This legislative inertia constitutes a dereliction of constitutional duty, particularly when balanced against the growing body of evidence linking over work to serious health consequences.

Medical research shows that extreme overwork leads to severe health consequences in the long run. Indian jurisprudence has long recognised health as an integral concept of the right to life under Article 21. The Constitution says that the government must protect workers’ health. Laws should be made with respect to safeguarding workers’ rights at workplaces. However, many workers are not provided with these safeguards. Gig workers and independent workers are one of the key examples of class of workers who are not provided with this protection. Many professionals also do not have these rights. It constitutes a glaring equity gap that demands rectification.

Why Current Labour Laws Fail Workers

While traditional labour laws protect formal sector employees. However, nearly 80% of India’s workforce in the informal and platform economy remain vulnerable to unregulated exploitation. Digital transformation has erased traditional workplace boundaries. It has led to creation of “chrono elastic employment”. Where people are expected to be available all the time because of mobile technology. This phenomenon constitutes a contemporary form of servitude prohibited under Article 23. As virtual connectivity enables employers to extend working hours. These long working hours are typically well beyond statutory requirements with no physical limitations. Parliamentary intervention is necessary to lay down definite regulations on after working hours electronic communication. Such rules are necessary to maintain the sanctity of one's own time as an integral component of human dignity under our constitutional mechanism framework.

India stands at a crossroads either we can continue to ignore our constitutional commitments to worker dignity, or we can join progressive nations in recognizing that true economic development cannot be built on the broken health of our workforce. The right to disconnect has become a fundamental requirement of our constitutional order that can no longer be delayed.

The Path Forward: Legalising the Right to Disconnect

A robust right to disconnect statute must incorporate four cardinal principles ensure both practical efficacy and constitutional compliance. The legislation must establish absolute temporal boundaries through a presumptive 8hour workday and 40hour week ceiling. Deriving the idea from the International Labour Organization's Convention No. 1. At the same time permitting specific exceptions for essential services under strict judicial oversight. This aligns with directive to secure a social order promoting welfare under Article 38.

The law must create inviolable digital quiet periods. These are statutorily prescribed intervals during which work related communications attract strict liability. Such provisions would operationalize privacy protections under Article 21 affirmed in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case.

The regime should include financial disincentives that are cumulative, analogous to the "polluter pays" principle. This can be achieved through penalties that escalate from 1% of payroll for the first offense to 5% for repeat violations. Meanwhile the companies' directors are held personally responsible in extreme cases.

The law should create special labour tribunals where cases are decide within 30 days and adopt reverse burden of proof standards. This is also while bringing the "continuous harm" doctrine down from environmental jurisprudence to workplace violations. Such streamlined settlement. Such streamlined settlement system would fulfil access to justice mandate under Article 39A while overcoming the enforcement failures that plague existing labour statutes.

Conclusion

At this pivotal juncture, India's failure to enact a law providing the right to disconnect is both a constitutional deficiency and a cost factor. A toxic work environment is sustained in India by the lack of the Right to Disconnect. Gig and corporate workers number in millions, burning out with no protective cover under the law. Article 21 of our Constitution guarantees dignified working conditions. But there is no enforcement against exploitation in the digital economy. Progressive economies prove that productivity and well-being of workers walk hand-in-hand. The solution lies in our own constitutional vision, judicial wisdom, and international precedents. The political will to convert these protections from verbal promises into legally enforceable commitments that respect both work and life is now needed.

Author: Sanya Bajpai, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.