Discuss the challenges in extending social security to gig and platform workers in India, given the absence of a traditional employer-employee relationship.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 is the first Indian law to recognise gig and platform workers [2]. It defines them as working outside the traditional employer-employee relationship [4]. NITI Aayog estimates that this workforce will grow from 77 lakh (2020-21) to 2.35 crore by 2029-30 [3]. Because there is no "employer", it is still unclear who registers these workers, who pays for their cover and who is accountable.

Legal and definitional challenges

• No identifiable employer: employer-linked protections such as EPF/ESI contributions, wage security and protection against dismissal do not apply automatically.
• Separate category: the Standing Committee asked for gig workers to be counted as "unorganised workers" and defined more precisely. Only the platform-worker change was adopted [4]. As a result, categories overlap.
• Welfare, not rights: workers may get insurance but have no remedy against arbitrary deactivation from an app.

Financing challenges

• Aggregators pay 1–2% of turnover, capped at 5% of payouts, but the exact rate is left to notification [1].
• A turnover-based levy cannot be traced to individual workers, which is a problem when they use several apps. Rajasthan instead charges a fee on each transaction, with 12% interest on delays and recovery as land-revenue arrears [7].
• Compliance costs may be passed on to workers or consumers.

Registration and data challenges

• e-Shram issues a UAN on a self-declaration basis. Only 5.09 lakh gig workers had registered by Nov 2025 [2], against the 77 lakh estimate [3]. That is fewer than 7%.
• The 2026 Central Rules make registration mandatory and require aggregators to share worker data through an API [5]. Results depend on whether platforms comply and how good the data is.

Institutional and federal challenges

• The newly notified National Social Security Boards can only recommend and monitor. They do not run schemes [6].
• Social security is a Concurrent List subject, so State laws [7] add the risk of a double levy. The Committee had asked for compact governance and time-bound universal coverage [4]. Neither has been provided.

The core problem is that a welfare system built around employers is being applied to work that has no employer. The way forward is to notify the levy quickly and move to per-transaction contributions credited to each worker's UAN through the API. The Boards should be used to offset Central and State levies against each other, and universal coverage needs a deadline. Together, these steps would put into practice Article 43 (living wage) and SDG target 1.3 (social protection for all).