Critical analysis explores social security provisions for gig workers in India, suggesting improved frameworks for implementation.
The Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code) represents a paradigm shift in India's labour jurisprudence by formally recognizing gig and platform workers for the first time in the country's legal history. This paper critically examines the extent to which the SS Code addresses the social security needs of India's rapidly growing gig workforce, which currently constitutes approximately 7.7 million workers and is projected to reach 23.5 million by 2030. Through a qualitative analysis of the Code's provisions, secondary literature, and comparative insights from international labour standards, this study identifies a fundamental tension between the Code's progressive recognition of gig workers and the practical limitations of its implementation framework. While the SS Code introduces crucial definitions of "gig worker," "platform worker," and "aggregator," establishes a Social Security Fund, and creates institutional mechanisms through National and State Social Security Boards, significant challenges persist regarding ambiguous classification criteria, voluntary registration requirements, inadequate aggregator contribution formulas, and the absence of occupational safety, minimum wage, and collective bargaining provisions. The paper argues that the SS Code constitutes an incomplete legislative response—necessary but insufficient for addressing the precarity inherent in gig work. Drawing on International Labour Organization Recommendation 204 and comparative frameworks from European Union and California models, the study proposes a multi-stakeholder governance framework that balances flexibility with protection. The findings have significant implications for human resource management practices in platform-based enterprises and for policymakers seeking to operationalize the Code's provisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gajanan Jagadish Salunkhe (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: