On 1st January, 2026, lakhs of gig workers across India staged  a nationwide strike. Weeks earlier, in November, the Government had introduced four major labour reforms: the Code on Wages, 2019, the Code on Social Security, 2020, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (collectively ‘the Codes’). For the first time, gig and platform workers were formally recognised in law marking a milestone in labour reform. Yet this recognition remains partial. Although the Codes extend social security coverage, they leave key issues like occupational safety, wage security, and collective rights largely unaddressed, raising human rights concerns.

As highlighted in NITI Aayog’s Reports, the gig economy has significant growth potential and is projected to contribute substantially to India’s aspiration of becoming a global economic leader. This growth is driven by fast, round-the-clock delivery models adopted by platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato, Zepto, and Blinkit. However, 10-minute delivery models prioritise speed over safety, especially during peak and festive periods, making the risks to workers disproportionate to the demand for faster service.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 extends limited health and financial protections, such as maternity benefits and compensation upon the death of a breadwinner, under Section 2(78). However, it only provides partial protection as the regulation of everyday working conditions, including reasonable working hours, mandatory health checks, and preventive safety standards fall under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, from which the gig workers are excluded. This exclusion is inconsistent with India’s obligations under Article 7(a)(ii) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified in 1979, which obligates States to guarantee just and favourable working conditions ensuring a decent living for workers and their families, without limiting its protection to any specific class of workers.

Similarly, under Article 43 of the Constitution, it is the State’s duty to formulate a minimum living wage for workers. The same has been incorporated under Chapter II of the Code on Wages, 2019. The purpose is to preserve workforce efficiency by covering the educational and medical requirements of workers and their families, and not just mere sustenance of life, as stated in the Report by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Thus, the demand of gig workers for a statutory minimum wage, given their extended and sometimes odd working hours, time-bound deliveries and heightened occupational risks, is constitutionally valid.

Furthermore, given the evident power imbalance between platforms and gig workers, platforms must bear responsibility for worker safety through measures such as certified protective gear like helmets, accident insurance, and compensation for vehicle damage. Platforms could also deploy real-time risk alerts to reroute deliveries away from high-risk zones, reducing preventable injuries and failures should attract penalties akin to those under Chapter XII of the OSH Code. However, the exclusion of gig workers from the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 denies them collective bargaining rights, furthering the power imbalance and undermining the freedom of association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c).

Finally, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI and Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union Of India, the Supreme Court affirmed that workplace safety is integral to the right to life with dignity under Article 21, read with Article 42 and the Preamble’s commitment to social and economic justice. The continued exclusion of gig workers from labour protections reflects not merely a policy gap, but raises constitutional rights alarms. Integrating gig workers within all four Codes is therefore a human rights imperative.

As India’s gig economy expands, there is an urgent need to extend comprehensive protections to gig workers under the Codes. India can draw lessons from jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where its Supreme Court, through its 2021 decision in Uber BV v Aslam recognised Uber drivers as ‘workers’, entitling them to minimum wages and paid holidays. Similarly, following Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco in 2021, the Australian government proposed a minimum wage of at least A$31.30 per hour for food delivery workers, alongside accident insurance and other safeguards. These developments underscore an emerging international trend on extending labour protections to gig workers.