The government has nudged quick-commerce operators to stop publicising their 10-minute delivery services—and they have complied, at least formally. But it is hardly surprising that barely a day later, these services continue to be available as before.
No one seriously expected them to be discontinued. After all, quick commerce is a lucrative business, especially at a time when a growing number of households want goods delivered almost instantaneously. To be sure, no platform will openly defy the Centre’s directive on advertising; that would not go down well with the authorities.
But aggregators are unlikely to give up the opportunity to leverage an abundance of cheap labour to boost profits. Speed will therefore remain central to the business model. In other words, the era of 10-minute deliveries is far from over. What should worry policymakers, however, is that delivery riders—and those sharing the road with them—remain exposed to significant risks.
Earnings Gap
Many have suggested that the government should take a hard line and bar ultra-fast deliveries altogether. But such direct and drastic intervention in business models is neither easy nor particularly desirable. The result is an unhappy middle ground—the service continues, advertising is toned down, and safety concerns persist. More troubling is what this means for gig workers’ livelihoods. It is difficult to see how their meagre earnings can meaningfully improve under the current system.
Zomato founder Deepinder Goyal has said average hourly earnings have risen to `102 from `92 in 2024. On paper, this suggests that a delivery partner working 10 hours a day for 26 days could earn about `26,500 a month, or roughly `21,000 after fuel and other expenses.
But reality appears far removed from these theoretical calculations. A recent on-ground experiment by Indian Express correspondent Soumyarendra Barik tells a different story. Posing as a gig worker for three days, Barik rode 105 km, worked over 15 hours and completed 23 deliveries to earn Rs 782. After fuel costs of Rs 250, he was left with Rs 532—about Rs 34 an hour. The gap between promise and practice is telling. Not every worker can achieve the “average” earnings cited by platforms.
Many likely cannot, as it requires punishing schedules, minimal breaks, constant availability during peak hours and near-total acceptance of orders. Refusing an order often comes at a cost. Some platforms penalise workers by disabling their accounts for a day if three orders are rejected; others put accounts on temporary hold. This is before accounting for the physical toll of navigating traffic in cities like Delhi or Mumbai.
Policy Reform
The gig economy has undoubtedly created employment for millions. But even if these workers are not on company rolls, they deserve a better deal. The government would do well to revisit the draft social security rules, particularly the eligibility criteria. Lowering the minimum number of days a gig worker must log with a single aggregator—say, to 45 from 90—would be a start. As this workforce continues to expand, it is incumbent on policymakers to ensure that speed and convenience for consumers do not come at the cost of safety and a dignified livelihood for those powering the system. Banning advertisements is no substitute for substantive reform. At best, it is an exercise in optics; at worst, it deflects attention from the real issues that need to be addressed. The debate around 10-minute delivery should not remain what it is today—a performance that reassures no one and protects little.