Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 41

In the digital age, our greatest tools of productivity — the smartphone, the laptop, the instantaneous email — have become our silent, 24×7 taskmasters. They have eroded the vital boundary between professional life and personal well-being, turning evenings, weekends, and even holidays into extensions of the workday. This culture of constant availability is not a badge of dedication; it is a creeping sickness, and its diagnosis is writ large across the face of the Indian workforce. The time has come for India to officially legislate a fundamental right for its citizens: the right to disconnect.

As the proposer of a Private Member’s Bill advocating this very measure, the author believes that this is not merely a piece of progressive labour reform. It is a national imperative for public health, long-term economic productivity, and social stability. India cannot achieve its aspirations as a global power if its most valuable resource — its people — are quietly burning out.

An unsustainable pace of work in India

The data paint a grim picture. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), 51% of India’s workforce works more than 49 hours per week, placing the country second globally for extended working hours. This pace is unsustainable. Further, 78% of employees in India report experiencing job burnout, leading to physical and emotional exhaustion.

This crisis of perpetual availability does not merely cause fatigue; it leads to severe health conditions. The lack of a proper work-life balance contributes significantly to lifestyle diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. These are not only individual tragedies but also societal burdens that strain the healthcare system and reduce organisational productivity. A fatigued worker is less creative, more prone to errors, and ultimately less productive. Measuring work by duration rather than quality is outdated and counterproductive.

The tragic death of Anna Sebastian Perayil, a young employee who died due to overwork in 2024, served as a warning to the entire workforce. Work-related stress, driven by expectations of constant digital availability, contributes significantly to the national mental health crisis, accounting for 10–12% of cases according to the National Mental Health Survey. Ignoring this crisis amounts to neglecting the well-being of the nation.

India’s current legal framework remains inadequate for protecting workers in a hyper-connected economy. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, limits working hours for traditional “workers” but often fails to extend similar protections to “employees”, especially contractual, freelance, and gig workers. This leaves a large, young, digitally dependent workforce vulnerable to exploitation. When employees fear disciplinary action or termination for ignoring late-night work communications, the power imbalance clearly favours employers.

A global issue

The proposed Bill seeks to address this gap by amending the Code to clearly define and limit working hours for all employees. It aims to legally recognise the right to disconnect by ensuring two protections: employees cannot be penalised for refusing to engage in work-related communication beyond working hours, and grievance redressal mechanisms must be established when this right is violated. These measures restore dignity and protect physical and mental well-being without fear of professional consequences.

India is not alone in facing the challenges of an “always-on” work culture. Countries such as France, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Australia have already introduced legal protections recognising the right to disconnect. These laws require organisations to create clear protocols limiting after-hours communication. Such measures show that respecting employee downtime supports sustainable economic growth rather than hindering it.

The law provides a framework, but cultural change is equally important. The right to disconnect ensures employees are no longer compelled to remain available beyond regular working hours, helping restore the boundary between personal and professional life.

Legislative momentum is growing, with States like Kerala introducing similar protections at the local level. However, the scale of the issue requires a uniform national approach. By amending the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, the proposed Bill ensures nationwide protection, including for contractual and gig workers, and integrates mental health support as part of occupational safety.

Other interconnected steps to take

Laws alone cannot bring transformation. Effective implementation requires awareness programmes, advocacy, and sensitisation of both employees and management. Toxic workplace norms that prioritise “presenteeism” over actual output must be addressed. Provisions for counselling and psychological support should become an integral part of workplace culture.

The right to disconnect is an investment. Well-rested employees are more innovative, committed, and productive in the long run. By improving work-life balance, the quality of work improves significantly.

Incorporating legal protections such as the right to disconnect and limiting working hours will help create a healthier workplace environment in India. Improved physical and mental well-being will lead to a more sustainable and productive workforce.

The choice is clear: continue down the path of burnout or embrace reform that values the strength and sustainability of India’s people. Implementing the right to disconnect is a necessary step towards a healthier, happier, and more productive nation.

Source: The Hindu

Question 1

Principle: Labour laws should protect employees from exploitative practices that harm their physical and mental well-being.

Facts: Rohan works for a private company that regularly expects him to respond to official emails late at night. When he fails to do so, his performance appraisal is adversely affected.

Which of the following best applies the principle to the facts?

A. The company is justified since responding to emails is part of modern work culture.
B. Rohan cannot complain as no law expressly prohibits after-hours communication.
C. The company’s action is valid if mentioned in the employment contract.
D. The company’s action is exploitative as it harms employee well-being.

Correct Answer: D

Question 2

Principle: A law is effective only if it applies uniformly to all similarly placed individuals.

Facts: The existing labour framework limits working hours for permanent workers but does not extend the same protection to gig and contractual workers.

What is the most appropriate legal inference?

A. Gig workers do not require labour protection.
B. Contractual workers voluntarily waive labour rights.
C. The law suffers from unequal application and requires reform.
D. Separate laws should be enacted only for permanent workers.

Correct Answer: C

Question 3

Principle: Sustainable productivity depends on balancing economic goals with employee welfare.

Facts: An organisation believes that longer working hours automatically lead to higher productivity and discourages employees from taking breaks.

Which option best reflects the correct legal reasoning?

A. Productivity always increases with longer working hours.
B. Ignoring employee welfare undermines long-term productivity.
C. Employers can define productivity as they choose.
D. Employee fatigue has no relevance to economic outcomes.

Correct Answer: B

Question 4

Principle: Comparative legal practices can guide domestic law reforms when addressing common societal problems.

Facts: Several countries have enacted laws recognising employees’ right to disconnect from work after office hours.

How should this influence Indian labour law?

A. India can adopt similar protections recognising the right to disconnect.
B. Foreign labour laws are irrelevant to India.
C. Such laws only work in developed countries.
D. India should wait until employers voluntarily change practices.

Correct Answer: A

Question 5

Principle: Legal rights are meaningful only when supported by enforcement mechanisms.

Facts: A proposed law recognises employees’ right to disconnect but provides no grievance redressal mechanism.

Which conclusion is most legally sound?

A. The law is complete once the right is declared.
B. Enforcement mechanisms are optional.
C. The absence of remedies weakens the effectiveness of the right.
D. Employers will voluntarily comply without enforcement.

Correct Answer: C