The True Cost of Your 10-Minute Deliveries in India’s Gig Economy

On New Year’s Eve, as India’s cities lit up and online orders surged, the country’s gig economy found itself at the center of a heated public debate. While quick-commerce and food delivery platforms raced to meet record demand, delivery partners across multiple apps raised concerns over wages, safety, and working conditions.

For a brief moment, the promise of late-night meals and ten-minute grocery deliveries was disrupted by protests and strike calls. The episode reignited a deeper and more uncomfortable question: who truly pays for convenience, and what is the real cost behind ultra-fast delivery?

The flashpoint emerged as delivery partners associated with rapid-commerce platforms such as Instamart, Zepto, and Blinkit flagged growing concerns about algorithm-driven pressure, shrinking incentives, and increasing risks on the road.

Worker groups argue that extremely tight delivery timelines actively encourage unsafe behavior. Riders, they say, are pushed to take risks in traffic while facing the constant threat of sudden income loss due to account deactivations, often without guaranteed earnings or job security.

The Other Side of the Story

Deepinder Goyal, founder and CEO of Eternal—the parent company of Zomato and Blinkit—strongly pushed back against claims that strikes disrupted operations. In a series of posts on X, Goyal stated that New Year’s Eve deliveries proceeded smoothly despite protest calls.

According to him, more than 4.5 lakh delivery partners completed over 75 lakh orders for approximately 63 lakh customers, marking an all-time high for the platforms. He added that no additional incentives were offered beyond what is traditionally provided during New Year’s Eve and acknowledged the role of local law enforcement in maintaining order.

More broadly, Goyal challenged the idea that the gig economy is inherently exploitative. He argued that banning or overregulating platform-based labor would destroy livelihoods rather than solve inequality.

In his view, the discomfort around gig work stems from visibility. “The doorbell is not the issue,” Goyal wrote. “What we do after opening the door is the question.” He suggested that the gig economy has forced a direct confrontation between the working poor and the consuming class.

The Structural Challenge of the Gig Economy

India’s gig economy has expanded far faster than the regulatory frameworks meant to govern it. Government estimates cited in labour ministry documents suggest that India currently has around 80 lakh gig and platform workers—a figure expected to rise sharply as quick-commerce, ride-hailing, and food delivery services continue to grow.

By the end of this decade, gig workers are projected to form a significant share of India’s non-agricultural workforce.

A study by NITI Aayog on platform labor highlights the severe income volatility faced by gig workers. While gross monthly earnings may appear stable during peak demand, net incomes fluctuate widely once fuel costs, vehicle rentals, unpaid downtime, and frequent changes in incentive structures are factored in.

The report warns that gig employment is particularly vulnerable to economic shocks, as workers lack fixed salaries, guaranteed hours, or long-term income stability.

Safety remains another critical concern. Research cited by labor and transport experts shows that delivery riders face a disproportionately high risk of road accidents. Time-based incentives and strict delivery deadlines are often identified as contributing factors.

Worker organizations have repeatedly linked ultra-fast delivery promises to unsafe riding practices, especially during peak traffic hours and adverse weather conditions.

At the same time, official surveys underline the gig economy’s importance as an employment buffer. In the post-pandemic period, platform work has attracted a large number of young urban workers who lack access to formal jobs.

At the heart of the debate lies a dual reality: large-scale job creation paired with persistent precarity.

What the Law Actually Provides

Beyond moral and economic arguments lies a more complex legal reality shaped by India’s new labor codes.

For the first time, gig and platform workers are formally recognized under the Code on Social Security, 2020. However, the nature and scope of that recognition remain contested.

According to Vinay Joy, Partner at Khaitan & Co., the Code defines gig and platform workers as individuals who operate outside the traditional employer–employee relationship. As a result, they are legally classified as non-employees, placing them closer to independent contractors than salaried workers.

This distinction carries serious implications. Most labor protections in India—such as minimum wages, regulated working hours, job security, and safeguards against arbitrary termination—depend on the existence of an employer–employee relationship. Gig workers fall outside this framework.

While the Code on Social Security acknowledges gig workers, Joy points out that its protections remain limited and conditional.

“The Code only contemplates a social security framework,” he explains. “The benefits become enforceable only once specific schemes are notified and implemented.”

Crucially, the law does not mandate the government to roll out these schemes. “The Code uses the word ‘may’,” Joy notes, “which means there is no binding obligation and no enforceable right for gig workers at present.”

Recognition Without Real Security

Dheeraj Gupta, Advocate and Managing Partner at Peritia Law Chambers, views the new labor codes as signaling a structural shift in how gig work is treated under Indian law.

He argues that gig and platform workers are now formally included within the social security framework, marking a significant departure from earlier systems that largely excluded them from labor protections.

According to Gupta, the intent of the new framework is to decouple social security from employment status. “The codes aim to ensure access to benefits such as provident fund, health insurance, maternity benefits, and old-age protection, regardless of employment type,” he says.

This approach, he adds, aligns India’s labor laws with international norms that recognize social security as a fundamental right.

Yet Gupta acknowledges the gaps. Legal recognition has not translated into everyday protections. Minimum wages, work-hour limits, job security, and termination safeguards remain unavailable to gig workers.

In effect, the law has expanded the pool of workers eligible for social security without extending the full spectrum of labor rights.

When Things Go Wrong

The limitations of this framework become most visible when workers suddenly lose access to work.

According to Joy, gig workers have little legal recourse in cases of abrupt account deactivation. They depend largely on internal grievance mechanisms run by platforms, which are often opaque and lack legal enforceability.

While civil remedies for breach of contract may exist in theory, Joy questions their practicality. The time, cost, and complexity of civil litigation make such options largely inaccessible for gig workers.

Accidents expose another fault line. Since gig workers are not classified as employees, employer liability laws do not apply. Injured riders must rely on motor insurance or any welfare schemes that may eventually be notified under the Code on Social Security.

This stands in sharp contrast to formal employment, where employers bear statutory responsibility for workplace injuries.

Some states have attempted to bridge this gap. Karnataka, Bihar, and Rajasthan have introduced platform-based gig worker laws that mandate notice periods before termination, offer limited transparency around algorithmic decisions, and create state-backed grievance mechanisms.

However, these efforts remain exceptions, and their enforcement is still evolving.

The Unresolved Question

India’s gig economy currently operates in a legal gray zone. Workers are recognized but not fully protected. Social security is promised but not always enforceable.

Until welfare schemes are implemented and issues around termination, liability, and minimum standards are directly addressed, protections for gig workers will remain largely aspirational.

The true cost of ten-minute convenience lies in the growing gap between legal recognition and the lived reality of millions of workers racing against delivery deadlines every day.