PRAN Policy Paper No. 1 · 2026
From Hire and Fire to Fair Process
Why India needs a Private Employment Fairness Act — and why the cost of inaction falls on millions of working people who deserve better than managerial absolutism.
Adv. Amarjeet Singh
Founder, PRAN Foundation · Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Labour Law & Employment Rights
Policy Domain · Published 2026
“Managerial discretion cannot become managerial absolutism. Decisions affecting a person’s livelihood must be made through a fair, transparent and accountable process.”
— Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN Foundation
Executive Summary
The Problem No Labour Law Has Fully Solved
India’s economic rise has been powered by the private sector. From multinational corporations and technology firms to manufacturing units, hospitals, educational institutions and startups, private enterprises today employ millions of Indians and significantly shape their financial security, professional identity, and social mobility.
Yet while private employers exercise immense power over people’s livelihoods, India’s legal framework has not evolved to provide a universal guarantee of procedural fairness in private employment.
An employee may lose years of service because of an opaque performance appraisal. Another may be compelled to resign instead of being formally terminated. A whistleblower may suddenly receive poor ratings after exposing wrongdoing. A senior executive may be dismissed without ever knowing the evidence against them. Increasingly, artificial intelligence and automated HR systems make decisions that employees neither understand nor have the opportunity to challenge.
The debate is often framed as a conflict between employer autonomy and employee rights. That is a false choice.
The true issue is whether decisions affecting a person’s livelihood should be made through a fair, transparent and accountable process.
India’s Constitution promises justice, equality, and dignity. These values should not disappear when a citizen enters a private workplace.
Fair process is not anti-business.
It is essential to responsible business.
Part I — Structural Context
When Power Moves from the State to the Boardroom
For decades, discussions on civil liberties largely focused on the relationship between citizens and governments. The State was viewed as the principal holder of coercive power, and constitutional law evolved to prevent arbitrary exercise of that authority.
The twenty-first century presents a different reality. Today, many of the most significant decisions affecting an individual’s life are no longer made by governments. They are made inside private organisations.
| Who Decides Now |
What They Control |
| Employers | Careers and professional identity |
| Banks & Fintechs | Financial credibility and credit access |
| Technology platforms | Reputation and public standing |
| HR departments | Long-term employability, not just current employment |
| Internal investigation teams | Effectively, industry access |
A dismissal from a prominent employer can affect future recruitment, financial stability, housing opportunities, and even mental health. Yet these decisions are frequently taken through confidential processes with limited transparency and minimal external oversight.
A democratic society committed to the rule of law cannot ignore this contradiction.
The Inequality of Employment
Employment Is More Than a Contract
Traditional legal theory treats employment as a private contractual relationship, assuming equal bargaining power. Reality tells a different story.
What Employers Control
- ✕ Standardised offer letters
- ✕ Unilaterally drafted HR policies
- ✕ Performance evaluation systems
- ✕ Appointment of investigators
- ✕ Selection of witnesses
- ✕ Interpretation of internal policies
- ✕ Final outcome of all proceedings
|
What Employees Can Do
- ✓ Accept terms or not join
- ✓ Raise grievances internally
- ✓ Seek legal advice (at cost)
- ✓ Approach labour courts (if eligible)
- ✓ Resign
- —
- —
|
In effect, the employer performs multiple roles simultaneously — complainant, investigator, prosecutor, adjudicator, and appellate authority. No judicial system would consider such concentration of authority compatible with natural justice.
Reframing the Debate
Due Process Is a Business Value, Not a Legal Obstacle
Organisations that follow transparent disciplinary procedures generally experience:
✦ Higher employee trust and lower internal disputes
✦ Reduced litigation costs and fewer wrongful-termination claims
✦ Stronger investor confidence and improved ESG ratings
✦ Better organisational reputation in competitive talent markets
Justice is not merely about the result. It is equally about the process.
Part II — The Legal Landscape
The Constitutional Gap: Why Fairness Becomes Uncertain in Private Employment
India’s Constitution contains powerful protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21. However, most private employers are not considered the “State” under Article 12. As a result, an employee dismissed by a private company often cannot directly invoke constitutional remedies. This creates what may be called a constitutional gap.
| Government Employee |
Private Employee |
| Stronger constitutional protections | Primarily contractual protections |
| Judicial review more readily available | Limited direct constitutional remedy |
| Procedural safeguards often codified | Safeguards depend on contract and labour laws |
| Service rules govern dismissal | Employer-drafted policies govern dismissal |
Indian courts have repeatedly recognized that livelihood is closely connected to dignity and the right to life. Termination can affect income stability, housing, children’s education, healthcare access, professional reputation, future employability, and mental well-being.
Foundational Principles
Natural Justice: The Minimum Standard of Fairness
Rule 1 — Hear the Other Side
Audi alteram partem
No person should be condemned without an opportunity to be heard.
|
Rule 2 — Impartial Decision-Maker
Nemo judex in causa sua
No one should be a judge in their own cause.
|
The Contrast in Practice
Unfair Process (Common Today)
- ✕ Termination email with no prior notice
- ✕ No allegations disclosed to employee
- ✕ No hearing or opportunity to respond
- ✕ No reasons given for the decision
- ✕ No appeal mechanism offered
|
Fair Process (What PEFA Requires)
- ✓ Written notice specifying allegations
- ✓ Relevant documents shared with employee
- ✓ Meaningful opportunity to be heard
- ✓ Reasoned written decision issued
- ✓ Independent appeal mechanism available
|
Part III — Judicial Precedents
What Indian Courts Have Already Said
The judiciary has repeatedly affirmed that employment termination touches constitutional values.
1993 · Supreme Court
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Termination affecting a person’s livelihood must be fair, just and reasonable. Principles of natural justice cannot be ignored. Arbitrary termination is inconsistent with constitutional values.
|
1986 · Supreme Court
Central Inland Water Transport v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Supreme Court of India
Contracts between powerful employers and employees are not always negotiated on equal terms. Formal consent does not equal genuine bargaining equality.
|
Part IV — Current Deficiencies
Where Current Law Falls Short
| Employee Category |
Protection Level |
| Industrial Workmen | Relatively Strong |
| Managers & Supervisors | Limited |
| Senior Executives | Mostly Contractual |
| Consultants & Professionals | Mostly Contractual |
| Gig Workers | Uncertain |
| Fixed-Term Professionals | Variable |
Most Commonly Reported Issues
⚠ Forced resignations in lieu of formal termination
⚠ Opaque performance ratings without documented basis
⚠ Internal investigations lacking independence
⚠ Suspension without clear timelines or communication
⚠ Blacklisting and negative references without notice
⚠ Retaliation against whistleblowers
⚠ Confidential evidence never disclosed to the affected employee
Part V — The New Frontier
Algorithmic Management: The Accountability Vacuum
Increasingly, employers use automated software systems to screen resumes, rank candidates, monitor productivity, track digital activity, predict attrition risk, recommend promotions, and flag employees for disciplinary review.
If an AI system labels an employee a “low performer,” can that employee:
|
? See the data used to reach that conclusion?
|
? Challenge factual errors in the input data?
|
|
? Know the criteria and weightings applied?
|
? Seek a human review of the algorithmic output?
|
Indian law has not yet developed a comprehensive answer. The Private Employment Fairness Act must address algorithmic accountability as a first-order problem — not an afterthought.
Part VI — Global Benchmarks
How Other Jurisdictions Address Workplace Fairness
🇬🇧
United Kingdom
Employment Rights Act 1996
Employers must show valid reason and follow fair procedure. Even a valid reason is not enough — an unfair process makes dismissal unlawful.
|
🇪🇺
European Union
EU Charter · Labour Directives
Transparency in employment, worker consultation rights, and dignity at work as a fundamental value enforceable across member states.
|
🇦🇺
Australia
Fair Work Act
Dismissal treated as a reviewable fairness question. Independent tribunal review via Fair Work Commission. Employers must give reasons and opportunity to respond.
|
🇸🇬
Singapore
MOM Oversight + Guidelines
Maintains employer flexibility but enforces implied good faith duty, internal grievance procedures, and increasing workplace fairness guidelines.
|
🌐
ILO Convention No. 158 — Global Benchmark
International Labour Organization
Termination must be for valid reason. Employee must have opportunity to defend themselves. Right of appeal to an impartial body. A global reference point India has not yet ratified.
|
Part VII — The Commercial Argument
Why Procedural Fairness Strengthens Business
Benefit 1
Reduced Litigation Risk
Clear internal procedures reduce wrongful termination claims, labour disputes, reputational litigation, and regulatory complaints.
|
Benefit 2
Improved Workforce Stability
Employees who believe decisions are fair are more likely to remain longer, accept adverse outcomes, and engage constructively in reviews.
|
Benefit 3
Enhanced ESG Standing
Procedural fairness aligns directly with ESG frameworks — especially the Social dimension — and with investor expectations on governance quality.
|
Benefit 4
Reputational Protection
In the digital age, employment disputes become public rapidly. Fair process acts as a risk mitigation tool against reputational damage.
|
Part VIII — PRAN Policy Proposal
The Private Employment Fairness Act (PEFA)
PRAN proposes a dedicated legislative framework to ensure minimum procedural safeguards in private employment decisions that materially affect livelihood. The Act does not restrict the employer’s authority to decide — it governs the process by which that authority is exercised.
| Parameter | PEFA Position |
|---|
| Objective | Minimum procedural safeguards — not outcome guarantees |
| Scope | Private companies, startups, large employers, hospitals, educational institutions, consulting firms, gig platforms |
| What it protects | Termination, disciplinary action, or any action causing reputational harm |
| What it preserves | Full managerial authority to make decisions on merit |
| Oversight body | Time-bound internal appeal + accessible external grievance forum |
Seven Core Procedural Rights
📋
Right to Notice
Employees must be informed in writing of the allegations, supporting facts, and proposed action before any adverse decision is taken.
💬
Right to Respond
Employees must be given reasonable time to reply, access to relevant documents, and the opportunity to present evidence in their defence.
⚖️
Right to a Fair Hearing
Hearings must be before an impartial officer or committee. Conflict of interest disqualifies any decision-maker.
📄
Reasoned Decisions
All adverse actions must include written reasoning, identifying the evidence considered and the basis of the conclusion reached.
🔁
Right to Internal Appeal
An independent appeal authority within the organisation, with a time-bound disposal mandate, must be available to every employee.
🛡️
Protection Against Retaliation
Whistleblowers are protected from adverse action. Retaliatory terminations may be reversed by the appeal authority.
🤖
Limits on AI-Based Decisions
AI may assist but not replace human judgment in disciplinary actions. Employees must have the right to challenge algorithmic outputs and seek human review.
Part IX — PRAN Workplace Justice Charter
Ten Principles of Workplace Fairness
PRAN proposes that any organisation committed to responsible governance voluntarily adopt these ten principles as minimum standards of conduct:
|
01No adverse employment action without prior written notice
|
02No termination without stated reason and evidence
|
|
03No disciplinary inquiry without a meaningful hearing
|
04No decision-maker permitted to have a conflict of interest
|
|
05No secrecy in disciplinary evidence — disclosure is a right
|
06No retaliation against any employee for reporting wrongdoing
|
|
07No exclusive reliance on automated or algorithmic systems
|
08No reputational punishment without documented due process
|
|
09No denial of the right to appeal an adverse decision
|
10No exceptions to fairness where livelihood is at stake
|
PRAN’s Perspective
Why This Reform Matters Now
PRAN believes the Private Employment Fairness Act represents the next logical evolution of India’s legal ecosystem — one that closes the constitutional gap, brings algorithmic accountability into the regulatory conversation, and aligns India’s labour framework with global standards without sacrificing economic dynamism.
|
Closing the Constitutional Gap
Constitutional values of equality and dignity must reach private workplaces. PEFA translates those values into practical procedural guarantees for every worker.
|
Algorithmic Accountability
The right to understand, challenge, and seek human review of algorithmic HR outputs is a new civil right that Indian law must recognise urgently.
|
Growth Without Casualty
Minimum procedural safeguards reduce systemic friction in courts, in workplaces, and in investor confidence — for every stakeholder.
|
Part X — Conclusion
The Future of Workplace Justice
India stands at a defining moment in the evolution of its labour and employment ecosystem. The private sector is no longer a purely private space. It is a critical institution shaping livelihoods, dignity, and economic mobility for millions.
As workplaces become more data-driven, hierarchical, and technologically automated, the risk of unreviewable decision-making increases significantly. The challenge for Indian policy is not to restrict employers, but to ensure that power — wherever it exists — is exercised responsibly.
India does not need to choose between economic growth and employee protection.
It needs a framework where growth and fairness reinforce each other.
#EmploymentFairness
#PEFA
#WorkplaceJustice
#LabourLaw
#NaturalJustice
#DueProcess
#AlgorithmicAccountability
#PolicyReform
#PRAN
#AccessToJustice
#IndiaPolicy
#HRPolicy
Share this paper:
💬 WhatsApp
in LinkedIn
🐦 X / Twitter
Disclaimer: This policy paper is intended for legal awareness and public policy discussion purposes only. It represents the views of PRAN (Policy Research Action Network) Foundation and does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking legal guidance on specific employment matters should consult a qualified advocate.
AS
Adv. Amarjeet Singh
Founder & Executive Director, PRAN Foundation | Advocate, Supreme Court of India (Enrolment No. D/3410-A/1999)
Adv. Amarjeet Singh is a practising advocate at the Supreme Court of India with over 20 years of experience spanning consumer protection, RERA, constitutional law, PIL, and public policy. He is the founder of PRAN (Policy Research Action Network) Foundation — a registered Section 8 non-profit dedicated to empowering citizens through legal awareness, advocacy, and evidence-based policy reform. His work has been cited in The Hindu, Times of India, and Economic Times.
हिंदी सार
भारत में निजी क्षेत्र में काम करने वाले करोढ़ों कर्मचारियों को नियोक्ता की मनमानी कार्रवाइ से कोई ऐठोस कानूनी सुररक्षा प्राप्त नहीं है। बर्खास्तगी, अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाइ या प्रतिष्ठा को हानि पहुंचाने वाले निर्णय अक्सर बिना किसी सूचना, सुनवाई या कारण के लिए जाते हैं। PRAN फाଢ଼ंडेशन “प्राइवेट एम्प्लॉइमेंट फेयरनेस एक्ट” (PEFA) का प्रस्ताव करता है, जो नियोक्ता की प्रबंधकीय शक्ति को समाप्त किए बिना न्यूनतम प्रक्रियागत निष्पक्षता सुनिश्चित करेगा। निष्पक्ष प्रक्रिया व्यापार-विरोधी नहीं है — यह जिम्मेदार व्यापार की नींव है।
Engage with PRAN
Support the Private Employment Fairness Campaign
If you are a worker, legal professional, HR practitioner, researcher, or policy advocate — your voice matters. Join PRAN’s effort to bring procedural fairness to every private workplace in India.
Write to PRAN
WhatsApp +91-8920798501
