Gig Worker Protection in India: The Constitutional Gap in the Platform Economy
Author: Sanjana Kujur
Student, Amity University, Kolkata
—————————————————————————————————————-
India celebrates “the fastest delivery in the world”, groceries in 10 minutes and food in 15 minutes. What does not arrive with the same speed, however, are constitutional protections for the 7.7 million gig workers who make this efficiency possible.
That observation would have been accurate until a recent policy shift altered the legal landscape. On 21 November 2025, the Government of India, under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, announced the implementation of four Labour Codes: the Code on Wages, 2019; the Industrial Relations Code, 2020; the Code on Social Security, 2020; and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2019. These codes marked an important shift by providing legal recognition to gig workers and offering a promise of social security.
Yet, as we celebrate Constitutional Day, an uncomfortable question remains: Are India’s gig workers finally receiving justice under the Constitution, or is this merely the beginning of a much longer struggle for dignity and rights?
Consider the Fundamental Rights enshrined in our Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the Right to Life with Dignity to every Indian. In practice, however, gig workers continue to be denied dignified working conditions. A Swiggy delivery partner earning as little as ₹15 per delivery may work exhausting hours and often has to climb up to 10 floors, as many residential societies do not permit delivery workers to use lifts. Despite such labour, many still fall below the poverty line, with no minimum wage protection or income security.
Article 14 promises equality before the law, yet two individuals performing identical work receive vastly different treatment based solely on their employment classification. A permanent employee is entitled to provident fund, gratuity, paid leave, maternity benefits, and job security. A gig worker generating the same revenue for the platform receives none of these protections. Same work, different dignity. This is a constitutional inequality that has been normalised for far too long.
Just last month, a simple message from a Zomato delivery partner went viral and broke millions of hearts online. The message read: “Hello. I am deaf. I can’t listen and mute. I will message you, see please.” Here was a person overcoming extraordinary physical and social barriers to earn a livelihood, yet working without even the most basic social security, health coverage, or job protection that the Constitution envisions as integral to dignified labour.
More critically, three of the four new labour codes, those relating to wages, industrial relations, and workplace safety, do not extend minimum earnings guarantees, employment protections, or enforceable working-condition standards to gig workers. The law also fails to address what workers themselves repeatedly identify as their most pressing concerns: fluctuating incomes that make financial planning impossible, arbitrary account suspensions without appeal, and sudden terminations without explanation.
A Bengaluru-based Uber driver can still be deactivated overnight based on a single unverified customer complaint, with no due process. A Delhi delivery worker can still die of heatstroke while platforms continue to deny liability for unsafe working conditions.
Even after the introduction of the new labour codes, several critical implementation gaps persist. Some of the most pressing concerns are discussed below.
1. The Minimum Wage Crisis: One of the most severe gaps in gig worker protection is the complete absence of minimum wage guarantees. Platforms retain unilateral power to reduce per-delivery or per-ride rates, often leaving workers earning ₹15 to ₹25 per task. Algorithmic wage-setting operates as a black box, offering no transparency and no worker participation.
A meaningful solution requires extending minimum wage protections to gig workers, with sector-specific minimum earnings calculated per hour rather than per task. Wage transparency laws must compel platforms to disclose how earnings are calculated, and Wage Protection Boards should be established with worker representation to determine fair rate structures.
2. Arbitrary Deactivation and Denial of Natural Justice: A delivery partner or driver can be permanently deactivated due to a single complaint, a ratings drop, or an opaque algorithmic decision, without notice, explanation, or an opportunity to be heard. This results in an immediate loss of livelihood and directly violates the principles of natural justice embedded within Article 21.
Remedial measures must include mandatory notice periods of at least 15 days prior to deactivation, along with written reasons. Workers must also be guaranteed a right to be heard before any final decision is taken.
3. Collective Bargaining and Freedom of Association: Platform terms routinely prohibit strikes and collective action. Workers who attempt to organise often face algorithmic retaliation, including reduced orders or sudden deactivation, in clear violation of Article 19(1)(c). Legal recognition of gig worker unions is essential. Platforms should be required to consult worker representatives before introducing policy changes, and strong anti-retaliation safeguards with meaningful penalties must be enforced. When individual workers confront billion-dollar corporations, collective action becomes not just a constitutional right but a means of survival.
4. Occupational Safety and Platform Liability: Gig workers routinely face road accidents, heat-related illnesses, and physical assaults, yet platforms continue to deny liability by categorising themselves as mere intermediaries. The existing accident insurance of ₹1 to 2 lakh is grossly inadequate, particularly in cases of permanent disability or death. There is an urgent need to extend workers’ compensation protections to gig workers, impose clear platform liability for work-related injuries, and mandate safety standards such as rest breaks, vehicle maintenance support, hazard pay, and heat-protection measures.
5. Gender Justice and Family Benefits: Female gig workers receive no maternity benefits whatsoever. Pregnancy often leads to complete income loss and even deactivation due to “inactivity,” forcing women to choose between economic survival and motherhood. The Maternity Benefit framework must be extended to gig workers, guaranteeing 26 weeks of paid maternity leave and 2 to 4 weeks of paternity leave, along with strict account-protection measures to prevent pregnancy-related deactivation.
Gig work has become an indispensable pillar of India’s modern economy, yet its workforce continues to remain constitutionally invisible. While the implementation of the Labour Codes marks a significant policy acknowledgment of gig workers, legal recognition without enforceable rights risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution do not distinguish between formal and informal labour when guaranteeing equality, freedom, and dignity. When millions of workers are subjected to opaque algorithms, arbitrary deactivations, unsafe working conditions, and the absence of social security, the constitutional promise of dignified livelihood stands diluted.
Protecting gig workers is not merely a question of labour reform but one of constitutional morality. As India celebrates constitutional values, the true test lies in whether the law evolves to protect those who power the digital economy. Justice for gig workers will not be achieved through speed or convenience, but through rights, accountability, and dignity embedded within the constitutional framework itself.
** Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.
The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.