Several leading gig economy platforms, including Swiggy, Zepto, and Zomato's parent company, have filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court to invalidate the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers Welfare Act, arguing it conflicts with the central Social Security Code enacted by Parliament.
- Platforms argue Karnataka law conflicts with central Social Security Code
- The state law imposes additional welfare fees on aggregators
- Gig worker unions defend the Karnataka law as supplementary and necessary
What happened
The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), along with Eternal Ltd (Zomato’s parent), Zepto, Swiggy, Urban Company, and Valmo Transportation, filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court on June 27, 2026, seeking to strike down the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025. They contend that the state legislation is inconsistent with the national Social Security Code (CoSS), 2020, which was implemented nationwide in November 2025 to regulate welfare for gig and platform workers.
The petitioners argue that the Karnataka law imposes welfare contribution obligations duplicative to those under the central Code, potentially requiring aggregators to pay twice. They base their claim on the constitutional doctrine that central laws prevail over conflicting state laws in concurrent areas, asserting the state Act creates an unwarranted parallel framework. The High Court has not yet scheduled the case for hearing.
Why it matters
This legal challenge raises critical questions about the balance of regulatory authority between central and state governments in India’s gig economy sector. The central Code on Social Security was designed as a uniform framework to provide social protections, while Karnataka’s law aims to address perceived gaps with additional state-level measures for gig workers’ welfare and welfare contribution collection.
Platform companies warn that overlapping regulations increase compliance costs and market distortions, particularly affecting pricing and demand in smaller cities. Meanwhile, worker unions such as IFAT and others vehemently oppose this challenge, viewing the Karnataka law as an essential supplement that strengthens protections and aligns with international labour standards, specifically the ILO Convention 193.
What to watch next
The Karnataka High Court’s interpretation of whether the state law is repugnant to the central Social Security Code will be pivotal. A ruling in favor of the platforms could limit states’ ability to enact tailored gig worker protections and unify regulatory oversight at the center. Conversely, upholding the Karnataka law could encourage other states to pursue similar supplementary frameworks.
Observers will also be watching the practical implications for aggregators concerning compliance and welfare contribution payments, as well as the potential ripple effects on policy debates surrounding gig worker rights and social security across India’s fast-evolving digital economy landscape.