Social security, recognized as a fundamental human right in the ILO’s Declaration of Philadelphia (1944) and reinforced by judicial interpretations such as the Asiad case (1982), remains inadequately realized in practice. This paper critically examines the structural and administrative limitations in the implementation of social security provisions. Key challenges include limited coverage, inadequate benefits, and weak administrative mechanisms. Despite commitments to international labour standards, there has been insensitivity toward conventions such as the Tripartite Consultation Convention (1976), reflected in irregular labour dialogues and the absence of sustained Indian Labour Conferences after 2015. The study highlights a significant trust deficit between the state and trade unions, even after extensive consultations, as evidenced by unified opposition from central trade unions. Conceptual ambiguities, particularly in the definition of “wage,” further complicate implementation, making it inaccessible to workers. Additionally, the lack of uniformity across legislations, fragmented access, and infrastructural deficiencies—especially in ESIC services—undermine effective delivery. Concerns over inadequate pension provisions and disparities in welfare entitlements reveal deeper inequities. Institutional shortages, including inspection staff and tribunal capacity, exacerbate governance challenges. The paper argues that while India’s social security framework appears robust in theory, systemic gaps hinder its translation into meaningful protection for workers.
Prajapati et al. (2026) studied this question.