India’s gig workforce, which accounts for about 2% of the country’s total workforce, has grown 55% in just four years to 12 million in FY2025. It is expected to expand further to 23 million by 2029-30, with non-agricultural gig workers accounting for 6.7% of the total workforce. At a time when creating suitable employment opportunities for the country’s young population remains a challenge, the gig economy is emerging as an important source of livelihoods. Gig workers are expected to contribute Rs 2.35 lakh crore to India’s GDP by 2029-30.
The growing importance of the gig workforce has also prompted a review of labour laws and the introduction of a new regulatory framework to address the interests of these workers. The four general labour codes that took effect in 2025, covering wages, social security, industrial relations and occupational safety, along with gig worker-specific social security rules announced in 2026, represent important steps towards formally recognising platform workers and defining the responsibilities of aggregators.
The introduction of these codes is a much-awaited and welcome move. However, classifying gig workers as contractors leaves them outside several protections available to conventional employees, including safeguards against termination, fixed working hours and collective bargaining rights. Last year, workers associated with platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato, Blinkit and Zepto went on strike to protest issues related to the quick-commerce delivery model, demanding transparent and predictable wages and collective bargaining rights. These concerns continue to persist, suggesting that the current legal framework has not fully addressed the expectations of the gig workforce.
Algorithm-driven service-level agreements, or SLAs, penalty and incentive systems, and a lack of transparency around ratings and the principles governing platform algorithms continue to create discontent. Workers often have limited visibility into how their performance is assessed or how decisions affecting their earnings and access to work are made.
Occupational safety, working conditions and accident-related liabilities also remain areas of concern. These risks are often borne largely by gig workers rather than being treated as conventional employer responsibilities. Welfare benefits are available to workers who are engaged with a single platform for 90 days or across multiple platforms for 120 days in a financial year. Aggregators are required to contribute up to 1-2% of their annual turnover to a social security fund, while a 48-hour weekly work limit has also been introduced. However, implementation of these provisions is still evolving across states, and there is a need to ensure that the intent of the law is reflected in practice.
The gig workforce is also far more diverse than the platform-based delivery and mobility workers who dominate the public discourse. According to Niti Aayog data, high-skilled workers, including IT consultants, software developers and graphic designers, account for 22% of the gig workforce. Medium-skilled workers, such as salon professionals, technology-enabled tutors and administrative support providers, account for 47%, while low-skilled workers, including ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, constitute 31%.
Although the legal definition of gig workers covers task-based, freelance and project-based assignments, including those undertaken by IT and knowledge workers who have opted out of conventional employment, the practical focus of the regulatory framework remains largely on app-based transport and delivery platforms. High-skilled freelancers and medium-skilled gig workers do not always find their specific concerns adequately addressed.
For these workers, the primary challenges are often different. Algorithmic safety and wage issues may not be central to their concerns. Instead, the absence of accessible labour dispute mechanisms and the prospect of costly and time-consuming civil litigation can create significant uncertainty. When disputes or ambiguities arise, some workers may simply abandon assignments rather than pursue a lengthy legal process. Rating and review systems can also be misused by dissatisfied customers to pressure gig workers into accepting unfavourable terms.
Cross-border assignments present another challenge. When gig workers have disputes with platforms over payments or contractual terms, they may have limited avenues for effective dispute resolution, particularly where the platform operates from another jurisdiction. In such cases, workers may have little choice but to forgo amounts owed to them.
As gig working becomes an increasingly significant source of livelihoods and careers, it is important to recognise that the workforce is not homogeneous. The challenges faced by a delivery worker, a freelance software developer and a technology-enabled tutor can be very different. Labour laws and social security frameworks therefore need to evolve beyond a one-size-fits-all approach.
The immediate priority should be systematic implementation of the existing provisions across states, alongside greater clarity on the rights and responsibilities of platforms and workers. Over time, the legal framework will also need to be reviewed and updated dynamically to reflect changing work models, technology and the growing diversity of the gig economy. A regulatory system that provides both flexibility and meaningful protection will be critical to ensuring that the growth of gig work translates into sustainable livelihoods.
The writer is chairperson, GTT Foundation.