Work Culture vs Competitiveness: India’s Debate on After-Hours Communication

India is once again debating whether the country needs a formal Right to Disconnect law, similar to the rules already in place in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Canada and Australia. These nations, supported by strong unions and highly formal labor markets, have framed laws that allow employees to ignore after-hours calls, emails and messages without fear of losing their jobs. Other advanced economies, including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland and South Korea, are still studying the idea or relying on company-level guidelines instead of national legislation. But in India, the question is far more complex, and many experts believe that this may not be the right time for such a law.

While digital fatigue and long working hours are genuine concerns across urban India, especially in IT services, outsourcing, consulting and start-ups, the country’s economic structure relies heavily on flexibility. India’s service-export sector operates across the world’s time zones, often dealing with clients in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. A strict law restricting communication after office hours could slow down responses, disrupt delivery schedules and weaken India’s competitive advantage in global markets. This is one of the reasons why major G20 economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan have not implemented such laws either. They fear that hard restrictions could reduce productivity and affect innovation.

This sentiment is echoed by some of India’s most influential business leaders. Infosys founder N. R. Narayana Murthy sparked national debate when he urged young Indians to be prepared to work up to seventy hours a week, arguing that India’s work productivity remains lower than many developed countries. He said that rapid national progress requires discipline, commitment and a willingness to put in extra effort, just as countries like Japan and Germany did during their economic rise. Other industry leaders have expressed similar thoughts, saying that India’s young workforce must remain globally competitive in an environment where speed, availability and customer responsiveness can decide the fate of an entire business. These perspectives highlight a broader cultural reality: India’s growth story has been fueled by a willingness to work hard, adapt quickly and respond at any hour when global clients need support.

Another challenge comes from the composition of India’s workforce. Nearly 80 to 85 per cent of Indian workers are in the informal sector from daily-wage earners and agricultural labourers to small shop employees and gig workers. For these millions, the idea of fixed office hours does not exist, let alone the concept of switching off communication after a designated time. A national Right to Disconnect law would apply only to a relatively small section of India’s formal, urban workforce. In contrast, the countries that adopted such laws have highly formalised labour markets where the majority of workers are salaried and protected by collective bargaining agreements.

Enforcement is another concern that Indian policymakers cannot ignore. Even countries with strong monitoring systems struggle to enforce disconnect laws effectively. In India, where labour departments remain understaffed and compliance systems are still evolving, implementing such a law could become largely symbolic. Without clear mechanisms to track after-hours communication or protect employees from indirect pressure, the law may exist only on paper while workplace culture remains unchanged.

India is also in the middle of implementing four major labour codes  on wages, social security, industrial relations and occupational safety. These reforms have not yet been fully rolled out across states, and adding another complex digital labour regulation may overburden both employers and the enforcement machinery. Many analysts argue that India’s current priority is job creation, investment attraction and strengthening the manufacturing and service sectors. A law that restricts flexibility could risk slowing this momentum, especially when global companies are choosing their next outsourcing destinations.

For these reasons, India may decide that this is not the right moment to bring a strict Right to Disconnect law. A more practical approach, experts suggest, would be to promote company-level HR policies that encourage reasonable communication hours, workplace wellness, clear shift systems and better workload planning. Such internal guidelines would allow each industry to respond according to its own requirements, without imposing a uniform national rule on sectors that operate very differently.

The global debate continues, but India’s path may need to be different. While the concerns behind the Right to Disconnect are real and important, the country’s economic realities, workforce composition and cultural attitudes towards work suggest that a legal mandate may not fit the current stage of development. For now, India may choose to strengthen workplace culture from within rather than legislate boundaries that could limit growth, flexibility and global competitiveness.