A viral video about a ₹370 biryani recently snowballed into a national debate after reports emerged that the employee at the centre of the controversy had lost his job over remarks made outside the workplace. While opinions remained divided over the comments themselves, the incident quickly moved beyond the specifics of a social media storm.
It raised questions about the growing overlap between personal conduct and professional consequences. In an era where a comment made in a comedy show, a post shared online or a video uploaded to social media can reach millions within hours, should employers be concerned about what employees do beyond office walls as well? And as reputational risks often emerge from outside the workplace, are organisations beginning to redefine where workplace accountability begins and ends?
The debate becomes harder to ignore as social media blurs the distinction between private individuals and public personas. What was once considered personal conduct is now visible, searchable and permanently archived online. For employers, that visibility presents both opportunities and challenges. For employees, it raises a different question: how much of their lives can realistically remain separate from the organisations they work for?
The Visibility Factor
At the heart of this dilemma lies a simple reality: visibility has changed. Not long ago, off-duty conversations were largely confined to those present in the room. Today, almost every interaction carries the possibility of becoming public.
Harish Bijoor, Brand Guru and Founder, Harish Bijoor Consults Inc., believes the issue goes far beyond individual controversies. "Our digital lives are watched much more than our physical environments. We leave digital footprints, and these digital footprints can be tracked," he says. The implications are strong. Publicly available information is easier to access and preserve than ever before. Employers, recruiters and stakeholders has the option to be no longer limited to resumes and interviews when forming impressions. Digital trails often provide an additional layer of information, whether organisations actively seek it or not.
Bijoor points out that the distinction between personal and public identities is rapidly shrinking. What individuals say, where they say it and how often they repeat it can all contribute to a digital record that remains accessible long after the original moment has passed. For employers, the challenge is not necessarily about monitoring people. It is about navigating a reality where reputational risks can emerge from sources that were never traditionally considered part of workplace management.
The growing visibility of employees has inevitably led organisations to revisit how they define acceptable conduct. Many large corporations already have social media guidelines in place. What is changing, however, is the scope and importance of those policies.
Sreelal Nair, Chief People Officer, Passion 4 Communication (P4C), argues that employees are often perceived as ambassadors of the organisations they work for, making reputational considerations difficult to separate from individual behaviour. Yet he is careful to distinguish between guidance and control.
"A well-defined digital conduct policy is more about providing clarity on professional behaviour rather than exercising control of one's behavior in an increasingly interconnected world," he says.
Historically, workplace policies focused on issues such as attendance, workplace ethics, confidentiality and professional conduct within the organisation. Today's environment presents a different challenge. Employers must also consider online harassment, discriminatory content, conflicts of interest, misuse of company branding and public communications that could expose businesses to legal or reputational risks.
According to Gaurav Sharma, CHRO at True Balance, future workplace policies are likely to become more explicit in addressing these realities. "Employment codes of conduct and contracts are going to evolve for providing more clear guidance on responsible digital behavior, social media usage, and potential actions that can have detrimental effects on the reputation of an organisation," he says.
Importantly, neither Sharma nor Nair suggests that organisations should seek unrestricted influence over employees' personal lives. Instead, both emphasise transparency, fairness and clearly communicated expectations. Several HR leaders also argue that effective digital conduct frameworks require more than written policies. Ongoing conversations, training and employee awareness programmes may become equally important in helping employees navigate increasingly public digital environments. As organisations formalise expectations, they may also need to invest in helping employees understand where professional responsibility intersects with personal expression.
But as companies develop more comprehensive policies, how far can those expectations legitimately extend?
The Legal Boundary
Social media has definitely blurred the line between personal and professional identities. But, the law remains one of the few mechanisms tasked with defining where that line should be drawn.
Medha Banta, Senior Associate Lawyer at Khurana and Khurana explains that Indian employment law does not grant employers unlimited authority over employees simply because they work for the organisation. Instead, any disciplinary action arising from off-duty conduct must be linked to a demonstrable impact on legitimate business interests. The critical issue is not necessarily where an action takes place, but whether it affects workplace harmony, legal obligations, confidentiality, business operations or the employer's reputation in a meaningful way.
This distinction becomes particularly important in the context of viral incidents.
Public outrage often unfolds at extraordinary speed. Employers can find themselves facing pressure from customers, stakeholders and online audiences long before all the facts are available.
Yet Banta argues that reputational concerns cannot be invoked in the abstract. Any disciplinary response must remain proportionate, consistent with internal policies and aligned with principles of natural justice, including giving employees an opportunity to be heard.
She cautions that viral outrage cannot become a substitute for due process. Even where employers believe reputational harm exists, disciplinary decisions must remain proportionate and employees must be given an opportunity to respond before action is taken.
The circumstances surrounding the ₹370 biryani controversy also illustrate why such debates are rarely black and white. In this case, the employee's remarks triggered widespread criticism over issues of consent and gender attitudes. The company subsequently terminated his employment, arguing that the incident no longer remained a purely personal matter.
In practical terms, this means that not every controversial opinion, unpopular statement or off-duty action automatically becomes a workplace issue. The legal challenge, therefore, is balancing two competing realities. On one hand, organisations have a legitimate interest in protecting their reputation and maintaining a safe workplace. On other, employees retain rights to privacy, dignity and lawful expression outside working hours.
The Employee Side of the Debate
Employees have their own concerns. If organisations are becoming more attentive to public conduct, where does that leave personal autonomy?
Should individuals be expected to represent corporate values around the clock? Can public criticism alone justify disciplinary action? And how much of an employee's private life should be considered relevant to their professional standing?
Sharma believes organisations should be cautious when extending workplace accountability into personal spaces. While certain forms of off-duty behaviour, such as harassment, discrimination, criminal activity or confidentiality breaches, may warrant intervention, public attention alone should not dictate disciplinary outcomes.
Similarly, Nair argues that employers should intervene only when conduct creates a direct impact on the workplace, violates company policies or results in tangible reputational or business harm. He also stresses the importance of due process rather than reactionary decision-making.
Without clearly defined boundaries, there is a risk that workplace expectations become overly broad, creating uncertainty around what constitutes personal conduct and what falls within the employer's sphere of influence. As companies develop more detailed policies, transparency and consistency are likely to become just as important as enforcement itself.
Will Digital Footprints Influence Careers?
The debate, however, is already influencing organisations around recruitment to some extent. While formal background verification continues to focus on qualifications, experience and references, publicly available online activity is increasingly becoming an unofficial layer of candidate assessment.
According to HR leaders, publicly available online information is increasingly being reviewed for leadership, communications and customer-facing roles. However, hiring decisions should continue to be driven by professional competencies.
But the ₹370 biryani controversy resonated far beyond questions of digital footprints. The backlash was driven not only by the remarks themselves but also by what many critics interpreted as an expectation of intimacy in return for spending money on a date. It provoked conversations around consent, entitlement and attitudes towards women, touching a social nerve that extended beyond workplace conduct.
In a country where crimes against women remain a persistent concern, such debates often carry a significance beyond the individual involved. According to NCRB data, India records more than 80 reported rape cases every day, a reminder of why conversations around consent and gender attitudes continue to attract strong public scrutiny.
The employer maintained that the fallout had begun affecting the organisation and workplace environment, ultimately leading to the employee's termination. Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the episode highlights the difficult questions employers face when personal conduct becomes public controversy.
The controversy may eventually fade, but the questions it has raised are unlikely to disappear. Personal and professional identities continue to overlap online, hence, organisations will need to balance legitimate business interests with employees' rights to privacy and personal expression. The real challenge may not be deciding whether digital footprints matter, but determining when they should.
