The e-SHRAM Paradox: Visible to the State, Invisible in Welfare | Bhumi Sharma, Faraz Ahmad and A. M. Jose

Introduction

More than 31 crore informal workers are now registered on India’s e-SHRAM portal. This is, by any measure, a major administrative achievement. A country where informal workers have long remained statistically scattered and institutionally invisible has finally created a national database for them. The platform promises a Universal Account Number, a digital identity, and a possible route to social security.
But a difficult question remains: what does registration mean if workers do not know what benefits they are entitled to, how to claim them, or where to go when the system fails?

This question is not meant to dismiss e-SHRAM. On the contrary, e-SHRAM is an important initiative. It recognises that India’s informal workforce, construction workers, domestic workers, street vendors, sanitation workers, migrant labourers, agricultural workers, platform workers, and many others, cannot be protected unless they are first identified. The problem lies elsewhere. India’s digital welfare systems often assume that once a person is registered, inclusion has taken place. But being counted is not the same as being protected.

The e-SHRAM portal was launched by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on 26 August 2021 to create a comprehensive National Database of Unorganised Workers. Workers are registered on a self-declaration basis and provided a Universal Account Number. Official data show that, as of 26 January 2026, more than 31.48 crore unorganised workers had registered on the portal. The government has also launched the e-SHRAM “One-Stop-Solution” to integrate different welfare schemes on a single platform.

These are welcome developments. Yet the real test of e-SHRAM lies not in the number of registrations, but in whether registered workers are able to access insurance, pensions, housing, health benefits, livelihood support, compensation, or grievance redress. A welfare registry must not become only a dashboard of impressive numbers. It must become a bridge between the worker and the welfare state.

This article argues that e-SHRAM currently suffers from what may be called “enumeration without entitlement.” Informal workers are visible in the database, but many remain invisible in actual welfare delivery. The portal has succeeded in counting workers, but the conversion of registration into meaningful social protection remains weak.

The argument is based on fieldwork conducted among 400 informal workers in Gurugram district during July–August 2025. Gurugram is an appropriate site for such a study because it contains both the image of a modern urban economy and the reality of deep informal labour dependence. Behind its corporate towers, gated housing colonies, construction sites, malls, hotels, transport networks and residential services lies a large workforce with limited security and weak bargaining power.

The evidence suggests that for many workers, the e-SHRAM card is treated as one more document to be kept safely, not as a working instrument through which benefits can be claimed. This is the central paradox: workers have entered the database, but the database has not yet fully entered their lives as welfare.

Counting Workers Is Not the Same as Protecting Them

The e-SHRAM portal responds to a genuine policy problem. India’s unorganised workers are difficult to identify because they work across multiple occupations, employers, locations and informal arrangements. Many have no written contracts, no stable employer, no formal social security number, and no regular connection with labour departments. Migrant workers are especially difficult to track because their work and residence change frequently.

In this context, a national digital registry is valuable. It can help the state know who informal workers are, where they are located, what occupations they perform, and what vulnerabilities they face. Without such information, welfare planning remains weak.

However, the deeper problem begins when enumeration is treated as the final achievement. A worker may be registered, but still not know whether she is eligible for insurance. A migrant construction worker may have an e-SHRAM card, but still not know whether it helps him access accident compensation. A domestic worker may have a Universal Account Number, but still have no local helpdesk to explain what it means. A street vendor may be in the database, but still depends on intermediaries to access any welfare scheme.

This is why e-SHRAM must be evaluated not only as a registration platform, but as a welfare instrument.
The question should not be, “How many workers are registered?” The more important questions are:

• How many registered workers know the purpose of e-SHRAM?
• How many have received benefits through scheme linkage?
• How many can update their details when they migrate?
• How many know where to complain if their information is wrong?
• How many can track the benefits linked to their registration?
• How many workers experience e-SHRAM as a real welfare gateway?

Unless these questions are answered, registration may create an appearance of inclusion without delivering social protection.

What the Gurugram Field Evidence Shows

The field survey conducted among 400 informal workers in Gurugram reveals a significant gap between registration and understanding. Only 15 per cent of respondents reported that they were fully aware of the objectives and benefits of e-SHRAM. Half of the respondents were registered but unclear about the use of the card. Another 25 per cent were aware of e-SHRAM but not registered, while 10 per cent were completely unaware of it.

These figures are important because they show that the problem is not simply non-registration. Many workers may have an e-SHRAM card without knowing what it can do for them. For many, registration was experienced as a one-time administrative exercise. They were told to register, they gave their details, they received a card or number, and then the relationship with the system ended. Reena, one of the respondents, said, “We registered on e-Shram because many others with us were doing the same, but we still do not clearly understand what benefits we will receive from it.”

Awareness was also uneven across social groups. Workers with secondary education and above were more likely to know about e-SHRAM benefits than those with lower levels of education. Smartphone access also mattered. Workers who had access to smartphones were better placed to receive information, search for details, or communicate with intermediaries. Migrant workers showed relatively higher awareness, possibly because they are more frequently exposed to welfare registration drives, contractor networks, or documentation requirements. Yet even among these groups, awareness did not automatically translate into access to benefits.

A particularly significant finding is that none of the 400 workers surveyed reported receiving any direct benefit—insurance, cash transfer, pension, or welfare linkage—through e-SHRAM at the time of fieldwork. This does not mean that e-SHRAM has no value. Nor does it mean that no worker anywhere in India has benefited from scheme integration. Official data now show that several schemes have been integrated or mapped with the portal. But the Gurugram evidence shows that, at the worker level, the connection between registration and benefit remains weak, unclear and uneven.

The field evidence points to a larger institutional issue: e-SHRAM has been successful as a registration drive, but it has not yet become an everyday welfare interface for many workers.

The Role of Intermediaries

A major reason for this gap is the role of intermediaries. Many workers reported that they were registered through Common Service Centres, local agents, contractors, panchayat-level actors, or other local facilitators. Such intermediaries are not necessarily negative. In a country marked by digital inequality, language barriers and low literacy, intermediaries often make access possible. Without them, many workers may not even be registered.

But there is a difference between supportive mediation and dependent mediation. In many cases, workers relied on intermediaries not only for registration but also for understanding what registration meant. Once the registration was completed, the intermediary’s role often ended. Workers were left with a card but without knowledge of benefits, procedures, correction mechanisms or grievance channels.

This creates an asymmetry. The system receives the worker’s data, but the worker does not receive clear information in return. The state becomes able to see the worker, but the worker is not equally able to access the state. This is the heart of the e-SHRAM paradox.

Digital welfare systems cannot assume that information automatically reaches workers because a portal exists. A portal is not a welfare relationship. A registration number is not a guarantee of protection. For informal workers, welfare requires explanation, follow-up, local support and accountability.

Women Workers and the Limits of Registration

The gender dimension of e-SHRAM is particularly important. Official data show that women constitute more than half of e-SHRAM registrations. This is significant because women workers are heavily concentrated in domestic work, home-based work, agricultural labour, care work, petty services and other low-paid informal occupations. These are sectors where workers often face low visibility, limited bargaining power and weak institutional support.

However, high female registration should not be mistaken for gender-sensitive welfare. A woman domestic worker may be registered, but still have no protection from wage delays, sudden dismissal, harassment, injury, or old-age insecurity. A home-based worker may have a card, but still remain outside formal systems of inspection, bargaining and social insurance. A woman migrant worker may be counted in the database, but may still be unable to update her work location, access local support, or claim benefits independently.

For women workers, digital inclusion must be accompanied by local and social support. Information must be available in local languages. Helpdesks must be accessible. Registration must be linked to schemes that address real vulnerabilities, such as health, maternity, insurance, housing, old-age support, accident compensation and income security. Without such conversion, female registration may produce statistical visibility without social empowerment.

The One-Stop Solution: A Necessary but Incomplete Step

The government has recognised the need to move e-SHRAM beyond simple registration. The launch of the e-SHRAM “One-Stop-Solution” in October 2024 is an important step in that direction. It aims to integrate different social security and welfare schemes on a single portal so that registered workers can access schemes and see the benefits they have availed or are eligible to access.

This is a welcome development. It shows that the government itself understands that registration alone is not enough. As of early 2026, official statements indicate that 14 schemes of different central ministries and departments have been integrated or mapped with e-SHRAM. These include schemes related to insurance, housing, employment, health, food security, pensions, street vendors, maternity benefits and other welfare areas.

However, integration on a portal is only the first stage. The deeper question is whether workers know about these integrations, whether they can understand eligibility conditions, whether they can apply without difficulty, whether they can track claims, and whether they can complain when benefits are denied.

A “One-Stop-Solution” must not become a one-stop dashboard alone. It must become a one-stop support system. For this to happen, e-SHRAM needs stronger local institutions. Workers require helpdesks, mobile facilitation camps, labour department outreach, worker collectives, grievance cells, and regular communication in local languages. A digital platform without local support will continue to exclude those who most need welfare.

From Database to Welfare Relationship

A welfare registry should be dynamic. Workers’ lives are not static. Informal workers change jobs, work sites, employers, cities and occupations. A construction worker may become a security guard. A street vendor may migrate seasonally. A domestic worker may change households. A sanitation worker may shift from one contractor to another. A platform worker may combine gig work with other informal employment.

If the registry is not regularly updated, it becomes outdated. If workers cannot easily correct or revise their details, the database becomes weak. If registration is not linked to live welfare delivery, it remains an inventory rather than a protection system.

Countries that use social registries more effectively usually treat registration as the beginning of an administrative relationship, not the end. Data are updated, eligibility is assessed, schemes are linked, local offices provide support, and grievances are addressed. India does not need to copy any foreign model mechanically. But it can learn an important lesson: a registry becomes meaningful only when institutions use it to deliver rights and benefits.

In the case of e-SHRAM, the challenge is not technological capacity alone. India has demonstrated that it can build large digital platforms. The more difficult challenge is institutional: who will help the worker after registration? Who will explain the benefits? Who will update the details? Who will resolve errors? Who will ensure that registration leads to welfare?

The Risk of Performative Inclusion

The danger is that registration may produce what can be called performative inclusion. This means that inclusion is shown through numbers, cards and dashboards, but not experienced as actual protection by workers.

A worker may be visible in the system but invisible in welfare. A worker may be counted in national data but absent from benefit flows. A worker may possess a card but cannot use it. This is not exclusion through absence. It is exclusion despite presence.

This form of exclusion is difficult to detect because it coexists with administrative success. Large numbers create the impression that the welfare state has expanded. But unless enrolment is connected to outcomes, high registration figures may hide weak delivery.

This is why the evaluation of e-SHRAM must move beyond coverage. The government should publish not only how many workers are registered, but also how many have received benefits through each linked scheme, how many updated their records, how many grievances were filed, how many were resolved, and how long benefit claims took. Transparency must move from registration statistics to entitlement statistics.

What Needs to Change

The future of e-SHRAM should not be reduced to a debate between digital optimism and digital criticism. Digital tools are necessary, but they are not sufficient. e-SHRAM can become a powerful platform for informal workers if it is redesigned around entitlement rather than enumeration.

First, every registered worker should receive clear information about the purpose of e-SHRAM and the schemes potentially linked to it. This information must be provided in local languages and through simple formats, such as SMS, voice messages, printed slips, local meetings and worker facilitation camps.

Second, the portal should provide a clear benefit-tracking mechanism. Workers should be able to know whether they are eligible for any scheme, whether their application has moved forward, and what action is required from them.

Third, local helpdesks are essential. Common Service Centres may assist with registration, but post-registration support requires stronger public accountability. Labour departments, urban local bodies, panchayats, worker facilitation centres and civil society organisations can play a role.

Fourth, grievance redress must be made central. Workers should know where to complain if their data are wrong, if benefits are denied, or if they are misled by intermediaries. A welfare registry without grievance redress is incomplete.

Fifth, migrant workers must be able to update location, occupation and contact details easily. Portability is meaningless if the system cannot follow workers across places of work and residence.

Sixth, women workers require special attention. Domestic workers, home-based workers, care workers and women migrants need targeted outreach, safe access points and gender-sensitive communication.
Seventh, the government should publish regular outcome-based data. Registration numbers are useful, but they are not enough. Public reporting should include benefit access, grievance resolution, scheme-wise linkage, gender-wise outcomes and state-level performance.

Finally, e-SHRAM must be linked to a stronger legal and institutional framework for social security. A database cannot substitute for enforceable rights. Workers need not only identification, but claims, protections and accountability.

Conclusion

The e-SHRAM portal is an important initiative in India’s attempt to recognise and support its vast unorganised workforce. It has brought millions of workers into a national database and has created the possibility of more coordinated welfare delivery. This achievement should not be dismissed.
But the next step is crucial. India must ensure that e-SHRAM does not remain a registration success and a welfare disappointment. The real measure of success is not how many workers are counted, but how many workers are protected.

The Gurugram field evidence reminds us that an e-SHRAM card, by itself, does not guarantee awareness, access or entitlement. For many workers, the card remains a document without clear use. This gap must be addressed urgently.

India does not need another impressive dashboard alone. It needs a welfare system in which every registered informal worker can know, claim and receive protection. Until e-SHRAM moves from counting workers to securing workers, enumeration will remain incomplete.

The promise of e-SHRAM will be fulfilled only when digital visibility becomes social security.

(Authors: Bhumi Sharma is a Research Fellow in Economics, and Faraz Ahmad and A. M. Jose are faculty members at the Amity School of Economics, Amity University Haryana. Contact: amjose[at]ggn.amity.edu)

AI declaration: AI-assisted tools were used for language refinement, organisation and reference checking.
The authors reviewed and take full responsibility for the final content.

References

• Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. 2026. Press Information Bureau release on e-SHRAM cards for unorganised workers, 2 February.
• Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. 2025. Press Information Bureau release on e-SHRAM registrations and scheme integration, 10 March.
• Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. 2025. Press Information Bureau release on effectiveness and utilisation of the e-SHRAM portal, 7 August.
• International Labour Organisation. 2022. Brazil: Cadastro Único – Operating a Registry through a National Public Bank.
• Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
• Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Sinha, Shalini and Shalaka. 2024. Registering Informal Workers in India: e-Shram, an Opportunity Lost? WIEGO.
• World Bank. 2017. Social Registries for Social Assistance and Beyond: A Guidance Note and Assessment Tool.