SOCIAL SECURITY OF GIG WORKERS IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CODE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 2020

In recent years, the growth of app-based work has created a huge and floating workforce that is engaged in core economic activities. As large numbers of workers are entering into this new domain of work, the workers remain outside the purview of the traditional employer-employee relationship. Estimated NITI Aayog estimate for gig economy workforce in India in 2020-21 was 7.7 million and it is expected to rise to 23.5 million by 2029-30.1 While recognizing the existence of gig economy workers for the first time in the history of independent India through Code on Social Security, 2020 (effective from 21 November 2025), Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 have given operational effect to the concept of social security through the said Code in May 2026.2 This paper, therefore, examines whether this formal recognition of gig workers translates into real social security benefit. The paper will, using a doctrinal and comparative approach, analyze the provisions of the Code, namely the definitions in section 2(10), section 114 and its scheme-enabling character, the capping of contributions by aggregators in section 114(5), the registration- and eligibility-based approach to entitlements in section 114(1)-(3), as well as the institutional framework of section 6. As the Code grants formal inclusion but no real protection to gig workers, three deficits are identified: Firstly, the benefits to be conferred on gig workers are to be laid out in the schemes of benefits that the Central Government “may” frame under section 114(10). Secondly, the Code on Social Security deliberately refrains from deciding the employment status of gig workers. Consequently, the statutory definitions of employment will continue to be of no use to distinguish between employees and non-employees. Thirdly, the entitlements of gig workers to the benefits conferred upon them depend, according to section 114(1)-(3), on their registration and on their having worked for 90/120 days on the platform in question. For a mobile, digitally managed workforce, proving these requirements will be a hard nut to crack. The paper will, for the purpose of comparison, also look into the approach of Uber BV v Aslam in the UK, the California ABC test, the Spanish Rider Law, the new EU Directive 2024/2831 on platform work, as well as the new ILO Convention No 193 (2026) on Women and Men in the New World of Work. Furthermore, the paper will analyze the two already existing statutes on platform workers, namely the legislation of the State of Rajasthan as well as that of the State of Karnataka. Finally, some recommendations will be offered, namely the conferment of statutory minimum entitlements, a rebuttable presumption of employment, the possibility of portable benefits as well as algorithmic transparency.