Discuss the challenges of extending social security to platform workers, given their ambiguous employment status.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 treats gig and platform workers as a separate category, outside the traditional employer–employee relationship [2]. NITI Aayog projects their number to rise from 77 lakh (2020–21) to 2.35 crore by 2029–30 [3]. Because they are "neither employee nor self-employed," extending social security to them is both urgent and difficult.

Challenges arising from ambiguous status

• Rights deficit: Apps set prices, allot work and can de-activate workers, yet they are not legal employers. Workers therefore get welfare schemes, not workplace rights such as minimum wages, limits on working hours or protection from arbitrary de-activation [2].
• No facts-based test: The ILO's 2026 platform-work Convention asks countries to classify workers by how the work is actually done, not by what the contract says [4]. India has no such test, so platforms can draft contracts that keep them outside labour law.
• Financing gap: The aggregator levy is 1–2% of turnover, capped at 5% of payouts to workers [1]. Because of the cap, collections follow payouts rather than profits. The Social Security Fund also needs Central and State contributions [6], so poorer States may offer weaker cover.
• Multi-apping and federal gaps: When a worker uses several apps, it is unclear which platform should contribute. Social security is a Concurrent subject (Entry 23, List III), so benefits depend on State-level registration and records [5].
• Weak institutions: The new 22-member Gig & Platform Workers' Board is only advisory and meets just three times a year [5]. A committee to suggest a framework was set up only in 2024 [2].

Counterpoint

• Many workers value flexibility. A blanket "employee" label would not fit all of them, and even the ILO Convention does not impose a single status [4].

Way forward

• Adopt a facts-based classification test aligned with the ILO Convention [4].
• Add income-loss cover and sick leave to insurance, in the partnership mode NITI Aayog recommends [3].
• Require time-bound Ministry responses to the Board's advice, and publish State-wise registration and spending data [5].

Ambiguous status is the root of these legal, financial and administrative hurdles. The Code and the new Boards provide a useful safety net. Adding clear classification rules, finances that grow with the workforce and Centre–State cooperation can deliver Article 41's promise of public assistance and SDG 8's goal of decent work for all.