For decades, sick leaves have been the universal safety net for employees—covering everything from seasonal flu to chronic illnesses. Yet, as conversations around well-being deepen, the boundaries of what counts as ‘sick’ are being redefined. The pandemic and growing dialogue around burnout, anxiety and emotional fatigue have pushed organisations to confront an uncomfortable truth: while mental health is championed in corporate campaigns, it still lacks a structural place in workplace policy.
Unlike a physical ailment, mental strain often goes unseen, unspoken and—too often—untreated. Most companies today allow employees to take sick leave for mental exhaustion, but this reactive approach doesn’t recognise the unique nature of psychological distress. Many argue that emotional well-being deserves its own category—one that validates mental rest as a legitimate need, not an indulgence.
However, others believe the challenge isn’t about creating a new type of leave but addressing the cultural discomfort that still surrounds mental-health conversations. Is India Inc. truly ready to make this shift? Should policy evolve before mindset, or must mindset change first? Let’s hear what the next-generation HR leaders have to say.
Ashish Sharma, chief human resources officer, Kenstar
Separating mental-health leaves from sick leaves is not just advisable—it’s necessary. Both require fundamentally different approaches and recognitions. Employees need the explicit right to take time off to strengthen their mental fitness. This is a vital investment in long-term productivity and emotional resilience.
However, before introducing such leaves, organisations must first build psychological safety. While people are increasingly vocal about mental well-being, stigma still persists. The success of any mental-health policy hinges on creating an environment where employees feel safe to express their struggles without judgment or fear of repercussion.
Rather than directly labelling such time-offs as ‘mental health leaves’—which may unintentionally carry negative connotations—these could be reframed more positively as ‘wellness leaves’ or similar terminology that normalises taking a break for emotional well-being. Leaders must create space for people to open up. Psychological safety is the true foundation of mental fitness.
Takeaway: Mental-health leaves should be introduced with sensitivity, leveraging a shift in language and leadership mindset to make them truly acceptable and effective.
Shashank Teotia, Chief Human Resources Officer, Paras Healthcare
Employees absolutely need time off to navigate stress, burnout and emotional exhaustion. But the reality is far more nuanced. While 40 to 80 per cent of employees grapple with some form of mental concern, only about five per cent actually utilise assistance programmes or mental-health support tools.
This gap stems entirely from stigma and fear. Even in India’s corporate world, we haven’t overcome the deep-rooted inhibitions people carry about acknowledging mental challenges. When you label leave as ‘mental-health leave,’ you inadvertently expose employees to judgment. You’re asking them to be courageous enough to declare, ‘I have a mental health issue’—but that remains extraordinarily difficult.
Organisations frequently begin with genuine intentions, launching dedicated mental-health leave policies, only to reverse course due to mistrust and perception issues. Too often, we scrutinise employees with suspicion, questioning whether they’re truly struggling or simply unable to handle pressure. Changing nomenclature from ‘mental health’ to ‘well-being’ leaves won’t address the underlying problem. We must transform our mindset first.
The real onus falls on leadership. Until organisations genuinely accept that mental-health challenges are legitimate, not indicators of weakness, these policies will remain ineffective. The imperative is to normalise conversations, guarantee confidentiality and distribute responsibility across the organisation—not burden the individual or external providers alone. We need transparency, candour and acceptance. Only then will such policies create meaningful impact.
Takeaway: Mental-health leaves are essential, but India Inc. lacks the cultural readiness to implement them effectively without dismantling stigma, ensuring confidentiality and fostering authentic dialogue.
Manish Kathuria, Head – HR, Honda Cars India
While mental-health leaves can serve as an important intervention tool, the overarching goal should be weaving mental well-being into the everyday fabric of organisational life—so employees never reach a breaking point in the first place. The focus shouldn’t be limited to creating another leave category but on building an environment where employees naturally feel supported, balanced and energised.
When organisations proactively nurture mental wellness through flexible work arrangements, regular check-ins and open communication channels, the need for formal mental-health leaves often diminishes. If an organisation genuinely invests in emotional resilience and empathetic leadership, employees feel comfortable pausing, reflecting and recharging—without guilt or formal labels.
Leadership plays a pivotal role in normalising these conversations. When leaders themselves model balance and self-care, they send an unmistakable message. The objective should be embedding mental health into daily dialogue, not treating it as an exception requiring policy intervention.
Takeaway: Prevention is better than policy—embedding mental well-being into daily culture through empathetic leadership and proactive support can reduce the need for separate mental-health leaves.