Content

1. Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work
2. 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
• 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
• 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

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
• 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

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)