Evaluate India's social security architecture for unorganised workers against the ILO conception of social security.

The ILO defines social security as the protection a society gives households to ensure access to health care and income security in old age, unemployment, sickness, invalidity, work injury, maternity and loss of a breadwinner [1]. India's architecture rests on the Code on Social Security, 2020, which came into force on 21 November 2025 [4]. Judged against the ILO standard, it covers far more workers but still offers too little security.

Where it aligns with the ILO conception

• Wider coverage: For the first time, the law defines gig and platform workers [4]. Sections 113–114 allow schemes for unorganised, gig and platform workers [3].
• New source of funding: Aggregators contribute 1–2% of their annual turnover [5]. This moves part of the cost away from workers and onto firms, in line with the ILO's idea of pooled, shared funding.
• An advisory body: A National Social Security Board advises on designing and monitoring schemes [3].
• Scale of need: NITI Aayog projects the gig workforce to grow from 7.7 million (2020–21) to 23.5 million by 2029–30 [7], so expanding coverage now is timely.

Where it falls short

• Schemes, not rights: Benefits depend on schemes the government chooses to notify. The Parliamentary Standing Committee flagged that entitlements and benefits were left to rule-making [5]. This is weaker than the guaranteed rights that EPF/ESIC give formal workers.
• Missing contingencies: ILO Convention No. 102 lists nine branches of social security [2]. For unorganised workers, unemployment and sickness income support remain the weakest.
• Capped funding: An aggregator's contribution cannot exceed 5% of what it pays workers [6]. The fund therefore grows with payouts, not with need.
• Weak tripartism and federalism: The Board is chaired by the Union Labour Minister, and the Centre nominates its members [6]. Yet labour is a Concurrent List subject, and States run delivery on the ground.
• Split categories: The Standing Committee asked for gig workers to be included in the definition of "unorganised worker". The Code did not accept this [5], so workers who move between gig and informal jobs risk falling into gaps.

Verdict India's system broadly meets the ILO's aim of covering everyone. It falls short on the ILO's aims of adequate, guaranteed income security.

Overall, India has built the base but not yet the full structure. The way forward is to:

• build up the social protection floor's four guarantees step by step [8];
• let trade unions choose worker representatives, and give States seats by rotation;
• expand partnership models with platforms, such as accident insurance for all partners [7];
• measure success by actual cover against each ILO contingency, not by registrations.

This would move India towards SDG 1.3 and the Constitution's Directive Principles (Article 41).