India’s economic story in the 2025–26 financial year is defined by speed and scale. The country continues to rank among the fastest-growing major economies, powered by rising digital adoption and expanding consumption. Yet beneath this momentum lies a structural imbalance – the rapid rise of the gig economy without a corresponding national framework of worker protection.The numbers reveal both opportunity and concern. India’s gig workforce has expanded from 7.7 million in FY 2020–21 to 12 million in FY 2025, marking a 55% increase in four years, according to the Economic Survey 2025–26. With over 800 million smartphone users and over 20 billion UPI transactions each month, platform-based work has become a core pillar of employment. Projections by NITI Aayog indicate this workforce will reach 23.5 million by 2029–30, forming 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce and contributing approximately Rs 2.35 lakh crore to GDP.Despite this scale, the sector operates in a fragmented regulatory environment. Stark critical gaps remain in labour protections in the rapidly expanding platform economy, where companies recruit workers to perform jobs or “gigs” offered through apps or websites. While India accounts for nearly 20% of global platform workers, the absence of a uniform legal framework has created uneven protections across states.The Code on Social Security, 2020, which formally recognised gig and platform workers, was expected to provide a welfare foundation. It proposed a 1–2% aggregator contribution toward a social security fund. Yet, even after the labour codes came into effect on November 21, 2025, operational rules remain hazy or absent as of April 2026.In this policy vacuum, four states – Rajasthan, Bihar, Karnataka, and Jharkhand – have enacted gig worker laws, while Telangana is consulting on its own draft. Karnataka’s framework stands out – introducing a 1–5% welfare fee per transaction, a welfare board, grievance systems and the right for workers to refuse tasks without penalty. These measures address key issues such as algorithmic surveillance and arbitrary account deactivation.Also read: Special | Instant Delivery Companies Say They’re Sheltering Workers From the Heat. Reality Looks DifferentHowever, state-level solutions remain limited. Gig work is inherently mobile. A driver operating across cities or a delivery worker moving between states encounters different legal protections depending on geography. This creates a “rights lottery” in a sector where demand and operations are national.The paradox is most visible in urban consumption. India’s middle class enjoys app-based convenience – ride-hailing, food delivery, and on-demand services – yet this ecosystem is sustained by workers facing income volatility and minimal security. Studies show 90% of gig workers lack savings due to irregular income stream, often sweating out at below minimum wage, leading to near zero retirement savings. On some platforms, 43% of workers earn less than Rs 10,000 monthly, and over 70% struggle with household expenses.The classification of workers as “partners” allows platforms to avoid traditional obligations such as provident fund, health insurance and paid leave. Workers bear opaque algorithmic decisions with little transparency. Surveys indicate 83% of drivers and 87% of delivery workers have faced adverse effects from account deactivation without clear explanation.Representative image of gig workers in Bengaluru. Photo: X/@aigwu_union.While the labour codes represent a major reform – consolidating 29 central laws into four codes – implementation delays and uneven state-level rule-making have created a compliance gap. Major employment hubs, including Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, are still finalising frameworks. As a result, both platforms and workers operate under uncertainty.The case for a National Engagement Code is compelling. First, the gig economy is central to India’s employment landscape, particularly for younger workers aged 24–38, who constitute 64% of the workforce. Second, fragmented state policies cannot effectively regulate national platforms. Third, varying welfare contributions risk regulatory arbitrage, distorting competition across states.A unified national framework would establish minimum standards – social security contributions, grievance mechanisms, income transparency, and protection against arbitrary deactivation – while allowing states to build on this baseline. It would also bring clarity to aggregators, ensuring consistent compliance across the country.China’s approach to platform labour offers a useful comparative benchmark. Since 2021, Chinese authorities have pushed companies like Meituan and Didi to ensure minimum earnings thresholds, social insurance contributions, and algorithmic transparency. The intent is to formalize platform work without undermining its flexibility.Also read: India’s Gig Workers Remain Undocumented, UnprotectedAchieving a uniform labour framework requires cooperative federal action. Reviving coordinated centre-state policy engagement – similar in spirit to the National Development Council – could facilitate consensus. Existing state models already offer tested frameworks that can inform national legislation.India’s growth narrative cannot rely solely on headline GDP figures. Sustainable development depends on the stability and dignity of its workforce. With projections placing gig workers at the heart of future employment, integrating them into a national policy framework is both an economic necessity and a social obligation.As India positions itself as a digital-first economy, the sustainability of its growth model will depend on how it treats the invisible workforce powering its platforms. The current policy stance – marked by intent without urgency – risks normalising a system where flexibility is prioritised over fairness. Bridging this gap will require more than incremental reforms. The question is no longer whether gig workers deserve security, but whether the state can afford to delay delivering it.Ganga N. Rath is a former central banker and Chirayu Sharma is an independent researcher. Views are personal.