Content
- Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work
- CSR as Corporate Obligation for Grassland Restoration & GIB Conservation
Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work
Why is it in News?
- Private Member’s Bill introduced in Parliament proposing a statutory Right to Disconnect for employees.
- Comes after consolidation of labour laws into four Labour Codes (2019–2020), especially:
- Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC Code)
- Industrial Relations Code, 2020
- Reflects growing concern over digital overreach, 24×7 connectivity, and blurred work–life boundaries in platform-driven and white-collar employment.
- Rare significance: Very few Private Member’s Bills become law, making it a normative agenda-setter rather than immediate legislation.
Relevance
GS II – Polity & Governance
- Labour law reform and regulatory capacity of the State
- Role of Parliament and significance of Private Member’s Bills
- Fundamental Rights in the workplace (Article 21: dignity, autonomy, mental health)
- State regulation of employer–employee power asymmetry
Practice Question
- “The Right to Disconnect reflects a shift from regulating physical workplaces to regulating employer control in the digital age.”Examine the significance of this shift in the context of India’s labour law framework. (150 words)
Structural Context: Why the Bill Matters ?
- Digitalisation of work:
- Remote work, hybrid models, platform labour, gig work.
- Employer control now exercised through emails, calls, messaging apps, task trackers.
- Indian labour law remains time-centric, designed for:
- Factory floors
- Physical supervision
- Fixed workplaces
- The Bill marks the first explicit legislative recognition that:
- Work now extends beyond physical space
- Connectivity itself can be a form of control
Core Provision of the Bill
- Grants employees the right to not respond to:
- Work-related calls
- Emails
- Messages
beyond prescribed working hours.
- Prohibits penalisation for exercising this right.
Key Legal and Conceptual Gaps
Undefined Concept of “Work” in a Digital Economy
- Indian labour law does not define “work” for digital contexts.
- OSHWC Code, 2020 regulates:
- Working hours
- Overtime
- Rest intervals
- Critical ambiguity:
- Does after-hours digital engagement = “work”?
- If not, can overtime protections apply?
- Result:
- Communication is regulated without being integrated into working-time law.
- The right risks becoming a behavioural norm, not an enforceable labour standard.
Disconnect without Reclassification = Weak Protection
- The Bill:
- Regulates response behaviour
- But does not reclassify availability, standby time, or employer control as work.
- Consequence:
- Employers may still:
- Implicitly expect availability
- Structure workloads assuming after-hours responsiveness
- Employers may still:
- Without redefining work, enforcement becomes difficult.
Interaction with Existing Labour Codes
- OSHWC Code:
- Prescribes maximum daily/weekly hours.
- Overtime is compensable only if classified as “work”.
- Bill does not clarify:
- Whether digital engagement triggers overtime.
- Whether refusal to respond affects performance appraisal.
- Creates a normative–legal mismatch.
Constitutional Dimension: An Unanswered Question
- Clear linkage with Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty):
- Mental health
- Autonomy
- Dignity
- Rest and leisure (implicit)
- However, the Bill:
- Does not articulate constitutional grounding.
- Leaves unclear whether the right is:
- Merely statutory, or
- An extension of fundamental rights into the workplace.
- Risk:
- Divergent judicial interpretations.
- Weak constitutional backing during challenges.
What India Has Not Done (Yet) ?
European Union
- Judicial evolution of “working time”:
- Employer control, not activity, is decisive.
- ECJ rulings (SIMAP, Jaeger, Tyco):
- On-call time
- Standby periods
- Availability under employer control
→ treated as working time.
France
- Does not redefine work.
- Clearly demarcates:
- Working time
- Rest time
- Digital communication regulated through:
- Collective bargaining
- Employer policies aligned with working-time law.
Germany
- Strict enforcement of:
- Maximum working hours
- Mandatory rest periods
- Digital engagement integrated into existing labour standards.
Key takeaway:
- Right to Disconnect works only when employee time is legally recognised as working time.
Indian Specificity: The Missing Link
- Indian labour codes:
- Mix mandatory standards (hours, safety)
- With contractual flexibility (policies, agreements)
- The Bill does not clarify whether:
- Right to disconnect is non-waivable, or
- Can be diluted via contracts and HR policies.
Conclusion
- What the Bill achieves ?
- Acknowledges digital transformation of work.
- Initiates legal discourse on constant connectivity.
- What it fails to resolve ?
- Definition of work in a digital economy.
- Integration with working-time and overtime law.
- Constitutional anchoring under Article 21.
- Net assessment:
- Best seen as a normative starting point, not a complete labour reform.
- Signals the need for future judicial and legislative evolution in Indian labour jurisprudence.
CSR as Corporate Obligation for Grassland Restoration & GIB Conservation
Why is it in News?
- 19 December 2025: A Supreme Court of India judgment reinterpreted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the Companies Act as a legally enforceable obligation, not voluntary charity.
- The ruling arises from ongoing litigation to prevent deaths of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) caused by power transmission infrastructure.
- Continues the Court’s conservation jurisprudence since 2021, balancing:
- Wildlife protection
- Renewable energy expansion
- Corporate environmental accountability
Relevance
GS II – Polity & Governance
- Expanding role of judiciary in environmental governance
- Constitutional duties under Article 51A(g)
- Corporate accountability and legal personhood
- Judicial balancing of development and environmental protection
GS III – Environment & Ecology
- Biodiversity conservation (Great Indian Bustard)
- Linear infrastructure vs wildlife habitats
- Grassland ecosystems and conservation financing
- CSR as a tool for internalising environmental externalities
Practice Questions
- “By reading CSR as a constitutional obligation, the Supreme Court has altered the nature of corporate responsibility in India.”Analyse this statement in light of recent environmental jurisprudence. (150 words)
What is New in the Judgment?
- CSR re-framed:
- CSR spending is treated as discharge of constitutional duty, not corporate philanthropy.
- Environmental and wildlife protection are read within CSR’s legal meaning under the Companies Act.
- Constitutional anchoring:
- Corporations, as legal persons, share duties under Article 51A(g) (duty to protect environment).
- CSR expenditure on ecology = constitutional compliance, not discretionary goodwill.
Why This Matters for Conservation Financing?
- Direct implication:
- Conservationists now have a stronger legal basis to demand corporate funding for:
- GIB recovery programmes
- Grassland restoration
- Mitigation of infrastructure-induced ecological harm
- Conservationists now have a stronger legal basis to demand corporate funding for:
- CSR + Project-linked funding:
- If enforced, CSR can support recurring costs, not just one-time pilots:
- Captive breeding and chick release
- Habitat restoration and long-term grassland maintenance
- Monitoring and mitigation near power corridors
- If enforced, CSR can support recurring costs, not just one-time pilots:
Background: Supreme Court’s GIB Protection Trajectory
2021 Interim Order
- Restricted overhead transmission lines across ~99,000 sq km of GIB habitat.
- Mandated:
- Undergrounding where feasible
- Committee-led feasibility assessment
- Triggered tension with:
- Renewable energy projects
- Power evacuation infrastructure
2024–25 Course Correction
- Expert committee constituted to:
- Balance species survival, climate commitments, and renewable expansion
- 2025 judgment operationalises this balance:
- Shifts from blanket-area restrictions to priority habitat zones
- Narrows but deepens conservation and mitigation obligations
What the Judgment Enables ?
- Legal clarity:
- CSR can be compelled for prevention and ecological recovery, not just compensatory actions.
- Targeted conservation:
- More detailed habitat–infrastructure planning reduces friction with renewables.
- Cost internalisation:
- Corporations linked to ecological risk can be made to internalise environmental externalities.
What the Judgment Does Not Do ?
- No quantification:
- Does not specify:
- Which companies pay
- How much
- Timelines
- Project-wise allocation
- Does not specify:
- Audit & enforcement gap:
- CSR non-compliance penalties remain under existing law.
- No dedicated monitoring architecture for conservation outcomes.
- Ecological mapping challenge:
- GIBs are mobile; risks may lie outside notified priority zones.
- Shifts burden to accurate habitat mapping, a known weakness.
Grasslands at the Centre: Why CSR is Critical ?
- India’s grasslands are:
- Ecologically rich but legally undervalued
- Often classified as “wastelands”
- Restoration requires:
- Long-term funding
- Continuous management
- CSR, if enforced:
- Can underwrite maintenance-heavy ecosystems where market incentives are weak.
Outcome vs Doctrine: The Real Test
- Doctrinal advance: Strong
- CSR + Article 51A(g) = enforceable environmental obligation
- Implementation risk: High
- Depends on:
- Speed of undergrounding and rerouting
- State capacity and utility compliance
- Translation of corporate funds into measurable ecological outcomes
- Depends on:
Conclusion
- The judgment marks a paradigm shift:
- From CSR as charity → CSR as constitutional and statutory duty
- It strengthens conservation law without rewriting statutes.
- Its success will hinge not on judicial reasoning alone, but on:
- Administrative delivery
- Corporate compliance
- Ecological results on the ground
Great Indian Bustard (GIB)
- Scientific name: Ardeotis nigriceps
- IUCN Red List status: Critically Endangered (CR)
- Estimated population: ~150 individuals globally; majority in India
- Primary habitat: Arid and semi-arid grasslands, scrublands, open plains
- Key states: Rajasthan (largest population), Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka
- Major threat: Collision with overhead power transmission lines (leading cause of adult mortality)
- Other threats:
- Grassland degradation and diversion
- Infrastructure expansion (roads, renewables)
- Low reproductive rate (1 egg per breeding cycle)
