Criticizing the new exit norms, many observers warn that restricting the mobility of scientists may prove counterproductive in the long run. While the government aims to protect mission continuity, creating barriers to resignation could negatively impact morale and discourage top-tier talent from joining the agency in the first place. A workplace that feels restrictive often leads to decreased productivity and innovation, as employees may feel trapped rather than motivated by their contributions to the national mission.
Critics argue that the focus should be on addressing the root causes of why scientists are leaving, rather than simply making it harder for them to quit. Issues such as competitive compensation, work-life balance, and the desire for more creative freedom are frequently cited as reasons for attrition. If the government forces scientists to stay against their will, it risks fostering a culture of resentment that could undermine the very projects it seeks to protect. True retention should be built on providing an environment where scientists want to stay, not one where they are legally or administratively compelled to remain.
Moreover, in an era where the private space sector is growing rapidly, ISRO must compete for talent on a global scale. Rigid labor policies may make the agency appear less attractive compared to private firms that offer more flexibility and higher financial rewards. By focusing on restrictive measures, the government may be missing an opportunity to modernize its human resources practices and create a more dynamic, rewarding career path for its brightest minds.