1. Introduction: The Rise of Algorithmic Management in India’s Gig Economy

The gig economy has grown in an enormous speed in India, and according to 2020-21 data India’s gig workforce was estimated around 7.7 million and is projected to reach 23.5 million by 2030.[1] It is benefitting millions as it becomes the major source of employment especially for young’s and urban migrants. This sector employs for temporary positions, short-term engagements, and on-demand services through digital platforms although the digital adoption is fundamentally carried by economic necessity[2] but this growth is deeply rooted in structural inequalities and infrastructural challenges.[3] The gig work in India works within the socio-technical landscape and the leading platforms such as Uber, Ola, Zomato, etc. fill this gap, by working as a middleman, functioning as digital intermediaries, coordinate, monitor, and compensate workers.

Between these companies and workers, algorithms acts as a “virtual managers”, controlling everything virtually including gig worker’s professional life, job allocation, pricing dynamics, performance ratings, and even disciplinary actions like deactivation.[4] These algorithms are deeply integrated into the operations of gig platforms and fundamentally reshaping the relationship between companies and workers and operates in the outset of traditional employer-employee relationship. Because of this, workers have no steady livelihood, income volatility, and the most important has no social and legal protection. This delegation of control to technology allows platforms to avoid accountability.

2. Algorithmic Firing and the Crisis of Due Process

The most severe and destabilizing form of algorithmic control is deactivation[5] which often termed as “algorithmic firing”. This involves the abrupt removal of gig worker’s platform access by AI and through algorithmic decision without any explanation, notice or appeal and lacked transparency which is arbitrary and violative of due process and principle of natural justice. Albeit, these platforms justify removal as contractual prerogatives and classify workers as “independent contractors” or “partners” rather than as employees and argued that they are merely disengaging them from a service agreement, and it not fall in the “firing” of employee and thus, not fall in the arena of traditional labour laws. However in practice these “deactivations” function as a “private adjudication” of right without necessary procedural safeguards. Although this argument of platforms goes against the Hon’ble Supreme Court as in LIC of India v Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995),[6] in this it was clearly held that right to livelihood cannot be waived by any contract and even in private employment relationships.

Deactivation works outside the circle of due process and transparency, as reported by many workers that they have receive no explanation or an inadequate one for their deactivation,[7] and they even could not defend themselves because support channels such as email or in-person visits remains unresponsive or dismissive, with detailed appeals often ignored.[8] Workers mostly interact with a “system” which offers limited power or information to resolve reported issues.[9] This kind of abrupt firing have negative impact on workers financial stability and might lead to temporary or permanent loss of livelihood and sometimes even failed to cover basic necessities like housing and food. In the other side, platforms defend themselves by concealing algorithmic processes by stating trade secret protection.[10]

In early years of gig platforms works in India, reports of unexplained deactivations among gig workers began to surface in platform such as Ola, Uber, and Swiggy.[11] A more recent incident of arbitrary deactivation was seen when Blinkit fired a delivery partner after customer informed customer care about wrong delivery.[12] Even though The DPDP Act, 2023 laid down a framework for consent, data handling etc. but it is silent about “automated decision-making” and there has no “right to explanation” and work-centric safeguards.

3. Platform Liability and Global Lessons on Algorithmic Accountability

In the question of liability, platforms represent themselves as “intermediaries”[13] but the way they exercise their algorithmic control contradicts their claim, which leads to legal ambiguity under labour laws regarding the liability for automated decision making. It further complicates when these platforms categorise their workers as “delivery partners” or “partners” to escape their liability.[14] Although, the core complexity lies in the lack of a clear legal classification for gig workers as either “employees” or “independent contractors”, because of which gig worker fall into the grey area, creating uncertainty regarding their rights and protections. This classification has negative impact on workers life because they denied fundamental labour protection, including of minimum wages, paid leave, social security, provident fund contributions, gratuity, accident insurance, and protection from unfair dismissal i.e. deactivation under existing laws. This legal ambiguity allows platforms to evade accountability and reinforce existing power asymmetries and exploitation of gig workers.

Albeit, the shift regarding has been seen around the globe including India, from the new labour codes, such as Code of Social Security, 2020 (hereinafter as “the Act”) which defines and formally recognize “gig workers” and “platform workers” and also laid down about the welfare schemes such as insurance, accident claim etc. but to achieve this funds will require, although the Act provides multiple things but remain silent on how it will execute. In this regard, few states also passed and some are proposed the law, In Rajasthan, state government passed the Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023[15] and under the Act defined gig worker and registration of them is mandated by the aggregator within 60 days, but it said nothing about transparency in algorithm and termination of work, although it provides for grievances redressal through or officer, and this Act also constitute a welfare committee and welfare fund for the workers. On the other side Bihar Platform Based Gig Workers Act, 2025[16] provides the same provision as it is given in Rajasthan’s Act, but it differs and make a strong stand on the point of algorithm transparency and termination of work, where it is given that platforms must inform about the criteria on determining distribution of work, rating system, log-in-time, and personal data. Although different states such as Karnataka, Telangana and Jharkhand, also presented their draft bill regarding regulation of gig workers. But all these falls short in both execution and design and even new labour codes has not even enforced.

In spite of that, algorithmic accountability is now become a global concern, various approaches adopted by the different jurisdiction to address this issue. In regard of that, EU adopted the Platform Work Directive[17] in March 2024, which aims to improve working condition in platform work, by imposing duties such as how they should manage algorithm and in that process it requires transparency, human control over important decisions, and guarantees workers a written explanation of any automated decision made against him. These directives also make it mandatory for platform to inform workers regarding how algorithms monitor and make decision, including what data is used and how it affect their employment. Further it put bar on platforms from processing sensitive personal data and collecting of information when workers are off duty, if we compare this to GDPR Act, the directives gives a much more clearer and stronger protection for platform workers.

In UK, the Supreme Court of UK in Uber v Aslam (2021)[18] ruled that drivers are “worker” rather than “independent workers”, and entitled them fair wages, paid holidays, and rest periods, which also exposed the Uber’s control over important aspect of their work and economic reality of the relationship. While in Spain’s “Rider’s Law”[19] also treats delivery riders as employees and mandates algorithm transparency and how it affects working condition, hiring decisions, and layoffs and also require for platform to make workers inform about how algorithm is affecting their employment. In US, legislative efforts was made through proposed bills such as No Robot Bosses Act[20] which tries to establish safeguards against automated employment decisions.

4. Rethinking Due Process and Regulatory Design for India

India’s gig economy is in the urgent need of a coherent legal framework which must ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in algorithmic management. Current approaches rely mostly on western model of “algorithmic fairness” which might not work in India as it overlook the India’s socio-economic realities such as caste bias, infrastructural gaps, and weak enforcement capacity. Recent steps such as Code on Social Security, 2020, the Rajasthan Gig Workers Act (2023), and the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Bill (2025) though represent progress but in a limited sense because these acts and bills are underfunded, and narrow in scope which leaves a substantial gap in protection of gig workers. In contrast, the developments abroad set a stronger precedent The EU Platform Work Directive (2024) goes even further by prohibiting algorithm-only dismissals, guarantees workers a right to explanation, and mandating human oversight over important decisions such as termination. The UK is also on the same side with EU, Uk’s Supreme Court has recognized platform-based workers as “workers,” and entitled them to basic rights such as minimum wages and leave benefits.

For India, what is urgently needed is a hybrid model. Such a framework should include statutory algorithm audits, transparent and fair contracts, mandatory social security contributions, accessible grievance redressal mechanisms, and meaningful worker participation in platform design. By embedding these due process protections into digital employment, India could reconcile innovation with constitutional commitments to livelihood, equality, and dignity.

*Authored Aakash Singh [People Relations Partner (India Region) H&M, aakashsingh948@gmail.com]

**Co-Authored Aniket Singh Tomar [Associate, Chamber of Amish Aggarwala, aniketsingh.nlud@gmail.com]

[1]Deepashree R, A Comprehensive Analysis Of India’s Gig Economy: Legal Frameworks, Algorithmic Governance, And Social Realities, 3 IJLSSS 532, 533, (2025), https://ijlsss.com/a-comprehensive-analysis-of-indias-gig-economy-legal-frameworks-algorithmic-governance-and-social-realities/.

[2] Pratyay Suvarnapathaki, Viral Shah, et al., The Boring and The Tedious: Invisible Labour in India’s Gig-Economy, CHI-HCIxB, 1, 1 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17697.

[3] Id.

[4] Supra note 1 at 538.

[5] Varun Nagraj Rao, Samantha Dalal, et al., FareShare: A Tool for Labor Organizers to Estimate Lost Wages and Contest Arbitrary AI and Algorithmic Deactivations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11273, 1, 1 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08904.

[6] L.I.C. Of India & Anr. vs Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 482.

[7] Dev Mittal & Amritansh Sharma, Need for Legislative Action to Protect India’s Gig Workers, Bar & Bench (Sept. 8, 2025), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/need-for-legislative-action-to-protect-indias-gig-workers.

[8] Supra note 5 at 25.

[9] Supra note 7.

[10] Shobhit, Algorithmic Transparency under Karnataka’s Gig Workers’ Bill, The Centre for Communication Governance Blog (July 24, 2024), https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2024/07/24/algorithmic-transparency-under-karnatakas-gig-workers-bill/.

[11] Jagmeet Singh, India’s Gig Economy Drivers Face Bust in the Country’s Digital Boom, Tech Crunch (Jan. 25, 2023), https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/25/india-gig-workers-problems/.

[12] Jocelyn Fernandes, Blinkit ‘fires’ delivery partner after woman informs customer care about wrong delivery: ‘This is quite unfair’, Mint, (Aug. 13, 2025), https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/blinkit-fires-delivery-partner-after-woman-informs-customer-care-about-wrong-delivery-this-is-quite-unfair-business-news-11755019345882.html.

[13] Supra note 10.

[14] Mayank Kumar, Connected but Unprotected: Reimagining Decent Work for India’s Urban Gig Workers, Pravasi Setu Foundation, (Aug. 11, 2025) https://psfresearch.com/connected-but-unprotected-reimagining-decent-work-for-indias-urban-gig-workers/.

[15] The Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023, Act No. 29 of 2023, (Rajasthan), https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/rajasthan/2023/Act29of2023Rajasthan.pdf.

[16] The Bihar Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration, Safety and Welfare) Act, 2025, Act No. 8 of 2025 (Bihar), https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/bihar/2025/Act8of2025BR.pdf.

[17] Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 On Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work, 2024 O.J (L 196) 1 (Published 11 Nov. 2024) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj.

[18] Uber BV and Others v Aslam and Others, UKSC 5 (UK).

[19] Royal Decree-Law 29/2021, of December 20, on urgent measures regarding flexible work, teleworking, and other labour issues, BOE No. 310, Dec. 21, 2021 (Spain), https://boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2021-7840.

[20] No Robot Bosses Act, S. 2419, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7621?s=1&r=4.