The Gig Economy's Precarious Pact: Why India Is Hesitant on Global Worker Rights
India's recent abstention on a new ILO treaty for platform workers highlights a deep-seated conflict between its domestic legislative approach and emerging global standards for the digital economy.
Pre-requisite: Understanding the Gig Work Debate
To grasp the significance of India’s position on global norms for gig workers, it is essential to understand the foundational concepts and the timeline of policy developments.
KEY TERMS
- Gig Worker: As defined by India’s Code on Social Security, 2020, a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of the traditional employer-employee relationship.
- Platform Worker: A sub-category of gig worker who uses an online platform or app to connect with and provide services to customers, such as food delivery or ride-hailing.
- ILO Convention No. 193: Titled ‘Decent Work in the Platform Economy’, this is the first binding international treaty, adopted in June 2026, that establishes a global floor of rights and protections for workers in the digital platform economy.
- Code on Social Security, 2020: One of four new Labour Codes in India that, for the first time, legally recognised gig and platform workers and proposed a framework for their social security.
BACKGROUND & TIMELINE
The rise of app-based services in the 2010s created a new, rapidly expanding workforce in India. These workers, however, existed in a legal grey area, typically classified as “independent partners” by platforms, which denied them access to traditional labour rights like minimum wage, social security, and collective bargaining.
- 2020: The Parliament of India passes the Code on Social Security, 2020. It becomes the first central legislation to formally define “gig worker” and “platform worker” and mandates the creation of a social security fund for them.
- 2022: The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), the government's premier policy think tank, releases its report, “India's Booming Gig and Platform Economy.” It estimates the 2020-21 gig workforce at 7.7 million and projects it will grow to 2.35 crore (23.5 million) by 2029-30.
- 2023: The Government of Rajasthan enacts the Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023, creating a state-level welfare board and a dedicated social security fund, moving ahead of the central government's framework.
- November 2025: The four Labour Codes, including the Code on Social Security, 2020, are brought into force across the country, making the provisions for gig worker welfare legally binding, though implementation remains a work in progress.
- June 12, 2026: The International Labour Conference, the highest decision-making body of the International Labour Organization (ILO), adopts Convention No. 193, setting a new global benchmark for the rights of platform workers. India abstains from the vote.
What is the issue?
On June 12, 2026, at the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, member states voted to adopt Convention No. 193, the first international treaty establishing binding standards for ‘Decent Work in the Platform Economy’. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour, with 406 votes for, 8 against, and 36 abstentions. India, a founding member of the ILO, was among the nations that abstained.
While India’s employer and worker delegates voted in favour of the convention, the government’s official delegation chose to abstain. This signalled a deliberate decision to distance itself from the global consensus on regulating the gig economy. The move has raised critical questions about India's commitment to protecting its rapidly growing platform workforce and the adequacy of its domestic legal framework.
What does ILO Convention No. 193 propose?
Convention No. 193 is designed to address the core vulnerabilities of platform-based work by establishing a universal floor of rights applicable to all platform workers, irrespective of their contractual classification. Its key provisions include ensuring workers receive statutory or negotiated minimum wages, timely payments, and access to occupational safety and health measures. The treaty mandates social security protections on terms no less favourable than those available to comparable workers in the formal economy.
The Convention also ventures into the novel territory of algorithmic management. It requires digital labour platforms to be transparent about automated decisions that significantly affect workers, such as work allocation and account deactivation. Platforms must provide written explanations for such decisions and ensure human oversight. Furthermore, Article 9 of the Convention directly challenges misclassification, stipulating that a worker's employment status must be determined based on the factual reality of their work, not the contractual label assigned by the platform.
What is the government's likely position?
While the Government of India did not issue a detailed public statement, its position can be inferred from its legislative actions and policy on ratifying ILO conventions. The rationale likely rests on two main arguments: the primacy of domestic legislation and the principle of federalism.
First, India has a stated policy of ratifying ILO conventions only after its national laws are in full conformity with the treaty's obligations. The government can argue that its own framework, the Code on Social Security, 2020, is already in place. This Code, which came into force in November 2025, directs aggregators to contribute 1-2% of their annual turnover (capped at 5% of payouts to workers) to a social security fund. From this perspective, the government may prefer to mature this domestic framework before committing to an external, binding treaty.
Second, labour is a concurrent subject under the Constitution of India (Entries 22, 23, and 24 in List III of the Seventh Schedule), meaning both the Centre and states can legislate on it. The government could argue that abstention respects this federal structure, allowing states to innovate. The enactment of the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers Act of 2023, which predates the full implementation of the central code's provisions, is cited as an example of such state-level action.
What are the concerns with India's abstention?
Critics, including workers' rights advocates, argue that India's abstention sides with digital platforms over workers. They point out that the domestic framework, while pioneering, remains largely notional. The Code on Social Security, 2020, does not specify the quantum or nature of benefits, leaving these details to be formulated through schemes that are yet to be fully operationalised. A NITI Aayog report highlighted the precarity of this workforce, noting that a large segment of gig workers undertake long shifts, often exceeding 12 hours, without any social security cover (Source: NITI Aayog, 2022).
The abstention is also seen as part of a pattern. India has not ratified two of the ILO's eight core conventions: No. 87 on Freedom of Association and No. 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, citing conflicts with domestic rules. Similarly, it has not ratified Convention No. 190 on workplace violence and harassment. This history suggests a consistent posture of endorsing principles while avoiding legally binding international obligations.
By abstaining, India forgoes the opportunity to use an international legal instrument to hold powerful multinational platforms accountable. As argued by workers' rights advocate Rejimon Kuttappan, this decision tells aggregators that the 'classification fiction' is safe in India and that their algorithms can continue to operate without transparency. It creates a potential divergence in rights between a platform worker in a country that ratifies the convention and one in India, undermining the principle of universal labour standards.
Conclusion: A Fork in the Digital Road
India's stance on ILO Convention No. 193 comes at a critical juncture, as the gig economy is now a central pillar of the country's service sector. With a workforce projected by NITI Aayog to reach 2.35 crore by 2029-30, constituting 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce, the absence of a robust, enforceable safety net is an urgent policy challenge. The government's abstention signals a preference for its domestic framework, leaving the existing regulatory ambiguity in place for a multi-billion dollar industry. As the platform economy scales, so does the precarity of its workforce, making the need for clear rights and protections immediate.
The path forward is likely to be fragmented. In the absence of a central commitment to an international standard, the onus will shift to state governments and the judiciary. More states may follow the lead of Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Telangana in creating their own welfare boards and social security mechanisms. The implementation of the central Code on Social Security, 2020, will continue, but its effectiveness will be tested in courts as worker unions challenge the classification of 'partners'. The central government is expected to notify the final rules for the social security fund contributions by the end of the 2026-27 financial year, which will be a key milestone to watch.
This decision reflects a fundamental tension in India's development model: fostering innovation in the digital economy versus the constitutional mandate for social justice. By refraining from adopting a global standard that prioritises worker rights and algorithmic transparency, India risks institutionalising a low-wage, high-flexibility model at a significant social cost. This stance places India at odds with many major economies—including China, Brazil, and key EU nations—on a defining labour issue of the 21st century. Ultimately, India's journey as a leading digital nation will be shaped by how it resolves this precarious pact between the platform and the provider.