Sidharth Patra*
The Wallet is built, but not the Rulebook
India boasts one of the largest gig economies in the world. As per the NITI Aayog Policy Brief (June 2022), the gig workforce is anticipated to increase from approximately 7.7 million in 2020–21 to 23.5 million by 2029–30, accounting for nearly 4.1% of the total workforce. However, one of the most perceptible concerns throughout this possible progression has been about the social security protections offered to the platform workers. To alleviate this distress, the Government of India has introduced the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026, as notified on8 May 2026. This move is seen as the first Indian instrument to impose enforceable mandates on aggregators operating through gig platforms.
While the thrust of the statutory obligations rightly rests upon the economic betterment of the gig workers, it is only a part of the broader solution. The actual fault line of this sector can be traced through the understanding of algorithmic control exercised over the workers.
Manager in the Machine: Understanding Algorithmic Control
Consider a food delivery rider in Delhi. The platform instructs him to drop a parcel within a proctored 15-minute deadline or lose his incentives. He speeds through obstacles on a busy road and, eventually, hastily crashes and breaks his arm. In such a case, he would have no immunity to get it covered under a white-collar-related insurance policy. Instead, he will have to pay the medical bill, grab his bike and ride away to deliver. Sadly, his experience is not an isolated one.
In its 2026 study of platform workers across nine countries, including India, Human Rights Watch discovered the role of companies that often algorithmically control the assignment of tasks, the determination of payments and even the termination of workers. All these functions enabling haste are performed not by a human, but by a computational model trained to calculate the pace and performance of a human worker. This indeed delivers profitability to the platforms, but ironically also discriminates among humans (its creators). Workers who fail to accomplish the set number of deliveries, or the ‘testing motion’, lose out on their jobs. The pattern that emerges is one of asymmetry: pay that shifts without notice, ratings that penalise a justified denial, and deactivation that comes without reasons.
This control framework has been termed ‘algorithmic management’ by experts. As introduced by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky and Dabbish in Working with Machines, algorithmic management pertains to “software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice”. Their study examines how workers in a gig economy experience the brunt of automated task assignment, dynamic pricing, and data-backed rating systems. What unfolds is the collective of workers being exposed to the shadow of opaque algorithms, which generate stress and economic pressure. With such observations, what the workers need is not another machine supervisor but a compassionate human coordinator. Through this interpretation, the concern becomes narrowed down to the need for a transparent management layer. That is exactly the birthing point for reforms in India’s newest legislative instrument on social security called the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026.
The 2026 Rules: Expanded Recognition, Narrowed Coverage
Examining the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026, Chapter VIII of the Rules emphasises the “Social Security for Unorganised Workers, Gig Workers or Platform Workers”. Its novelties include a self-registration avenue for the unorganized worker via Aadhaar or other prescribed documents under Rule 48(1)(b)-(c), delivery of scheme benefits under Rule 48(1)(h), while mandating the aggregators to share the details of enrolled gig and platform workers through APIs or electronic modes within 45 days of commencement (Rule 48(2)(b)). Read with Sections 113 and 114 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, this advances a genuine protection of the worker’s rights. It brings in statutory recognition, mandates aggregator contributions in a dedicated account (Rule 49(1)(c)), and scales a portable Universal Account Number that tracks the worker across platforms.
However, some noticeable flaws persist. The delegation of the registration process to individual States/UTs under Rule 48(1)(d) risks the fragmentation that the unified portal was aimed to circumvent. Further, the eligibility proviso under Rule 48(2)(e), which requires 90 days of engagement with one aggregator, or 120 days across several, in the previous financial year, establishes a continuity threshold in the work, which is defined by its very discontinuity. The seasonally displaced workers may therefore register and still never qualify for the benefits.
Through this structure, the Rules expand on who is counted but narrow down on who is indeed covered. An impetus for the need for transparency is compelled by the absence of the words ‘algorithm, automated decision-making, deactivation, and transparency’ in the entire chapter. This lacuna amplifies the prospect of automated rule-making, but this is exactly the void that a State in India presently seeks to fill, thereby fostering an indigenous legislative blueprint.
How Karnataka is Legislating the Algorithm
The newly enacted Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, fills precisely the gaps left out by the centrally codified rules. One of the best dimensions is the emphasis on building a robust framework for understanding the machinery that goes into shaping the decisions by the layer of algorithmic management. A closer look at the provisions of the Act reveals a strong resemblance to what a pan-India legislation must entail.
Section 2(a) of the Act states the definition of “Automated monitoring and decision making systems” as “systems which make decisions by automated means with or without human intervention”. This provides us with the interpretive ambit of scrutinising systems that extend beyond human control.
This sets the stage for Section 13 entitled “Transparency in respect of Automated Monitoring and Decision Making Systems”, which obligates the aggregator to inform the gig worker about the systems that determine the impact on the worker’s fares, earnings, customer feedback and other such details. Further, it binds the aggregator or platform to take necessary precautions to curb any discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth or on the grounds of disability. Thus, Section 13 not only comprises the heart of a fundamental transparency framework but also comes in constitutional accord with Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) of the Constitution of India, along with other legal sanctions, thereby cutting down worker displacement.
The Act moves even further to explore the ex-ante scaffolding before firing a worker. By placing Section 14 at the centre of the algorithmic thresholds, it necessitates that aggregators prepare an “exhaustive list of grounds of termination/deactivation of contract”, coupled with the requirement of mentioning valid reasons in writing and prior notice of 14 days before the termination or deactivation of the contract. This secures job security and a justified modus operandi for replacing a worker.
With these provisions, the Act portrays essentials that need to be painted for the significant canvas of a supreme legislation to follow through. However, despite the strong presence of a state-wide legislation, it’s also crucial to evaluate a transnational standard.
The European Benchmark: Transparency and Human Oversight
To draw a comparative scale, the European Union’s Platform Work Directive (EU) 2024/2831 offers an excellent benchmark. The directive, through the expression of Chapter III, entitled “Algorithmic Management”, shares an illustrative list of provisions reflecting the need for enhancing transparency in algorithmic support.
Article 9 of the Directive expressly mandates the platforms to ensure full and clear disclosure of information regarding the automated monitoring and decision-making systems, specifically about the categories of data processed, parameters of processing, purpose of such monitoring and even the essential requirement of stating grounds for restricting, suspending or terminating worker accounts. This disclosure remains time-bound, with the supply of such information to be shared at the latest on the first working day, or before any change to working conditions, or at the request of the respective worker. This Article further hinges on a data-protection impact assessment as articulated in Article 8 of the Directive. As per Article 8, the data processing is labelled ashigh-risk when it comes to the rights and freedoms of the workers. So, the assessment findings are to be explicitly communicated to the workers’ representatives to balance individual rights and human oversight over such assessments.
Stemming from human oversight, Article 10 indicates that any decision of account termination is to be made by a human. This ensures protection of the contractual relationship between the worker and the platform. Finally, the master provision situated in Article 11 elucidates the detailed scope of human review. It grants the worker a right to ask for clarifications, along with the provision of a written statement of reasons, a platform response time stipulated at two weeks, and rectification or compensation where the decision overstepped their rights. Notably, this very same timeline of a two-week clock aligns almost similarly with Karnataka’s fourteen-day grievance redressal timeline.
Thus, both the national norms and the comparative standards of the EU do share certain points of convergence. The benefit is for India to import from its own state and also from the EU standards to furnish a complete functional standard.
A Future of Algorithmic Fairness
On a concluding note, the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026, indeed form a genuine achievement for gig worker protections, but there are deficiencies which can be aptly addressed by necessary legislative accompaniments. The government has built the wallet with care, extending provisions for registration, contribution, and a funded welfare architecture. Notwithstanding the same, what remains to be seen is the structured governance of human oversight over the platforms that algorithmically assess who shall continue to work, whose pay changes, and whose access is inhibited from the platform.
The Karnataka model and the European Union Directive do suggest great examples, but neither of these paradigms must be taken up wholesale. The path forward for India is to build a future of algorithmic fairness, taking into account the best practices and following up with an indigenously developed pan-India legislative proposal.
* The author is a second-year law student at Bennett University, Uttar Pradesh. The author may be contacted at sidharthpatra0611@gmail.com.
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Policy Chronicle.