The recognition of gig and platform workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020 marks a paradigm shift in India's welfare architecture. Critically examine the role of the National Social Security Board in this context.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 is the first Indian law to define "gig" and "platform" workers [1]. It extends welfare to people who have no conventional employer. The National Social Security Board (NSSB) was notified under the Code in October 2026 [2] and is meant to anchor this shift. However, it can only advise, which limits what it can achieve.

Role of the NSSB: Strengths

• Multi-stakeholder forum: The Union Labour Minister chairs it. Members represent the Centre, the States, aggregators, unions and gig associations [2]. The gig-worker Board has 5 aggregator, 5 worker and 5 State representatives, plus the DG of ESIC [3]. This suits a Concurrent List subject.
• Mandate: It recommends schemes, monitors schemes run by the Centre, reviews State record-keeping and fund expenditure, and must meet at least thrice a year [2].
• Platform-funded welfare: The fund it oversees draws on an aggregator levy of 1–2% of turnover, capped at 5% of worker payouts. The levy covers nine categories listed in the Seventh Schedule [3].
• Relevance: The gig workforce is projected to grow from 77 lakh (2020-21) to 2.35 crore by 2029-30 [4].

Limitations

• Not new: A Board with a similar recommend-and-monitor role has existed since 2009 under the 2008 Act [5]. Advice alone did not deliver coverage then.
• No implementing power: It cannot notify or fund schemes. The levy rate also still awaits Central notification [2][3].
• Weak enrolment: Only 5.09 lakh gig workers had registered on e-Shram, which relies on self-declaration, by November 2025 [1]. That is under 7% of NITI Aayog's estimate [4].
• Parliamentary advice only partly adopted: The Standing Committee asked for gig workers to be counted as "unorganised workers", for universal coverage within a time frame, and for compact governance. Only the platform-worker definition change was adopted [6]. As a result, workers now face two Boards and possibly State boards as well.
• Welfare, not rights: The Board cannot decide a worker's employment status or protect against arbitrary removal from an app.
• Centralisation: The Centre chairs the Board, sets its procedure and assigns its remaining functions [2].

Way Forward

• Notify the levy rate and procedure rules quickly.
• Adopt a per-transaction fee like Rajasthan's 2023 Act [7]. Credit it to each worker's UAN using the aggregator data that the 2026 Rules require platforms to share through an API [8].
• Use the Board's State members to prevent platforms paying a double levy (Central and State) for the same worker.

The NSSB gives the Code's recognition of gig workers an institutional home. Whether this becomes a real paradigm shift depends on funded schemes, platform-linked registration and a deadline for universal coverage. With these, the Board can advance Article 43's promise of a decent life for workers and SDG 8 on decent work.