INTRODUCTION
India has one of the fastest-growing gig economies, with more than 12 million people involved in food delivery services, such as Zomato, e-commerce packages, like Amazon, and cab services, like Uber and Ola.[1] 30-minute deliveries are the new norm that the gig industry relies on. This model has served to be efficient for the consumers because of its convenience, but at the same time, it also raises serious questions about the working conditions in which the workers make such rapid deliveries. Section 2(35) of the Code on Social Security,2020 defines gig workers as a person who “performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of a traditional employer-employee relationship”.[2] This is the first instance where gig and platform workers are formally recognised within the Indian labour legislation, to create a framework to safeguard them from ambiguous and exploitative work conditions. This blog examines the loopholes in India’s legal framework governing gig workers and the consequences that arise because of such regulatory gaps.
CURRENT SCENARIO
On April 26, 2025, approximately 150 Blinkit delivery workers in Shri Ram Colony, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, protested against the violation of their labour rights, shedding light on the vulnerable situation of gig workers. They voiced their concerns regarding the unsafe working conditions they are bound to operate in, amplified by low and inadequate living wages and the failure of Zomato to provide them with the necessary amenities, like quality uniforms that are suitable for the heat.[3] These issues raise serious questions about compliance with statutory labour protections relating to workplace safety, as well as broader constitutional guarantees concerning dignity and fair treatment at work. Since gig workers are not treated as employees but rather as independent contractors, the accountability of the platforms remains unclear and discretionary. Because of limited employment opportunities, these workers often continue working without minimum wages or adequate workplace safety, a situation that raises constitutional concerns under Article 21, which protects the right to life and dignity.[4]
WHERE DOES THE SOCIAL SECURITY CODE FALL SHORT?
At the outset, the code makes a formal recognition of gig workers, but that is not enough. Since there is a lack of an employer-employee relationship, the workers are excluded from minimum wage protection and fixed working hours. The limitation remains evident as most of the benefit is left to future schemes without much clarity. As per Section 114 of the Code of Social Security, Aggregators are required to contribute 1-2% of their annual turnover towards the social security fund.[5] Even though this is a progressive intent, such a contribution may be inadequate when compared with the substantially higher employer contributions mandated in traditional labour welfare regimes and when assessed against the economic reality of providing health, insurance and retirement benefits to a large gig workforce, particularly given the scale of revenue generated by major platform companies. Although unlike the traditional employees, gig workers are not entitled to benefits like provident fund or gratuity, by giving them recognition under the social security code, the state can offer certain benefits, which may either be supported by the contribution of aggregators or through direct government funding. A major hindrance, however, lies in the implementation of these schemes, particularly the uncertainty surrounding their operational readiness and implementation. While the code is a necessary initiative for gig workers, the presence of such loopholes undermines the capacity to take into account the concerns of the workers.
KARNATAKA’S GIG WORKER LAW: A POTENTIAL MODEL?
Karnataka’s Platform-based Gig Workers’ Social Security and Welfare Bill, 2025, is a comprehensive model governing app-based gig workers in Karnataka. [6] While Section 10 of the bill requires the registration of both the platform and the worker, Section 21(1) mandates a payment and welfare fee verification system to ensure fairness and due diligence; the effectiveness of these safeguards ultimately depends on the robustness of their enforcement. Similarly, Section 16(1) addresses adequate rest and reasonable time travel facilities. [7]The Bill’s provisions on protection from arbitrary termination, therefore, need to be assessed in light of whether grievance redressal systems are accessible and whether authorities have sufficient powers to ensure actual compliance rather than symbolic regulation. Gig workers often face job insecurity and the constant risk of sudden termination, and Section 14(2) of the Bill seeks to curb this by requiring platforms to provide written reasons and a fourteen-day prior notice before ending a worker’s engagement.[8] The Karnataka bill represents a deliberate and effective state-level attempt to regulate gig work in India. At the same time, the bill also raises criticism from economists and industrial bodies like the Internet and Mobile Association of India(IAMAI) since the welfare fee on online aggregators could lead to higher costs for consumers and reduced gig work opportunities, since the fee applies only to online platforms and may distort market dynamics. [9]Another significant aspect is that revealing the algorithmic system could challenge the viability of the contractor-based framework. In essence, the bill has the potential to serve as a guiding map of the legal framework of the gig economy if the implementation is done in a robust way to safeguard the needs of the workers.
THE WAY FORWARD: CONCLUSION
To conclude, it is evident that the principal weakness in India’s legal framework governing the rapidly expanding gig economy lies in the absence of enforceable rights for workers despite their formal recognition. Unless regulatory approaches shift from symbolic inclusion to concrete, justiciable protections backed by effective enforcement mechanisms, such recognition risks remaining largely theoretical. The social security code requires timely implementation with certain improvements in the approach. Karnataka’s Bill for the State worker can be considered a good example that takes into account the protection of workers and the accountability of the platform. India’s gig economy will not be sustainable unless it strikes a balance between protecting workers’ rights and allowing platforms the freedom to operate and grow, a balance that reflects constitutional guarantees of dignity under Article 21 and the objectives of labour welfare legislation aimed at fair working conditions and social security.
Author’s Name: Tanzeel Fatma (Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur)
References:
[1] Jagmeet Singh, ‘India’s Gig Workers Win Legal Status, but Access to Social Security Remains Elusive’ (TechCrunch, 24 November 2025) <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/24/indias-gig-workers-win-legal-status-but-access-to-social-security-remains-elusive/> accessed 22 December 2025
[2] Code on Social Security 2020, s 2(35)
[3] Ajay N, ‘Blinkit workers alleged exploitation, Push for reform ’ (The Probe, 30 April 2025) <https://theprobe.in/public-interest/blinkit-workers-allege-exploitation-push-for-reforms> accessed 22 December 2025
[4] The Constitution of India, art 21
[5] Code on Social Security 2020, s 114
[6] Karnataka Platform-based Gig Workers’ Social Security and Welfare Bill 2025
[7] Ibid ss 10, 21(a) and 16(1)
[8] Ibid, s 14.
[9] Vallari Sanzgiri, ‘Industry Representatives and Labour Union Clash over Karnataka Gig Workers Welfare Bill Provisions’ (MediaNama, 18 July 2024) <https://www.medianama.com/2024/07/223-karnataka-gig-workers-welfare-bill-key-stakeholders-comments/> accessed 3 February 2026
