The Supreme Court's latest gig-worker hearing turned on a single question: who is responsible when a 'fair-distribution' algorithm makes a rider unhirable?
The petition the Supreme Court heard last Tuesday was filed by twelve delivery riders from three cities. They all had the same complaint: at some point in the last three years their accounts went from regular work to almost no work, with no explanation and no appeal.
What the platform said
The platform's affidavit referred repeatedly to a "fair-distribution algorithm" — software that decides which rider gets which order. The affidavit did not describe the algorithm, who built it, what inputs it used, or whether a human reviews its decisions.
When the bench pressed counsel, the answer was that the algorithm was a trade secret.
Why this matters
For the twelve riders the case is about lost income — between three and eleven lakh rupees each, depending on how long they were affected. For everyone else doing gig work, it's about whether the rules of the work they do can be a trade secret kept from them.
What happens next
The bench reserved judgement and asked the platform to file a sealed-cover description of the algorithm's inputs. The next hearing is scheduled for August.
Edited by Kabir Singh