In the era of digital convenience, India’s bustling cities have seen the meteoric rise of quick-commerce app-based services promising groceries, meals, and essentials delivered to your doorstep in 10 minutes or less. What feels like a marvel of modern logistics has ignited a fierce debate about the true cost of ultra-fast delivery: the well-being, safety, and dignity of the millions of gig workers who make this possible.
Recently, Aam Aadmi Party leader Raghav Chadha took the issue to the Rajya Sabha, India’s Upper House of Parliament, demanding a ban on 10-minute delivery services. He labelled this business model as cruelty against gig workers - human beings pushed to extremes to meet impractical deadlines under intense pressure. His appeal has sparked conversation across the country, from political circles to social media, reflecting deep unease about the exploitation hidden behind the promise of instant service.
At the same time, international voices, including British singer-songwriter James Blunt, have been caught up in this discussion, albeit from a very different angle. Blunt recently took to X (formerly Twitter) to express amazement at how fast delivery works in India, sharing that his order from services like Swiggy and Blinkit arrived in just six minutes. His light-hearted observation went viral, illustrating how consumers and outsiders often marvel at the speed of India’s quick-commerce industry without fully grasping what goes on behind the scenes.
This article explores the controversy, the logic behind ultra-fast delivery, the exploitation and risks involved, and the wider societal reactions, asking if instant gratification should ever come at such a high human cost.
The Anatomy of a 10 Minute Delivery
The concept of 10-minute delivery emerged from intense competition among quick commerce platforms such as Blinkit, Zepto, and Swiggy Instamart. These companies have built dense networks of micro-warehouses or “dark stores” in urban neighbourhoods, supported by fleets of gig workers, delivery riders, and drivers who are usually classified as independent contractors, not formal employees.
In a society where unemployment is high, especially among urban youth, these gig jobs appear attractive. They offer flexibility and the opportunity to earn quickly, even without formal education or skill training. The large pool of cheap labour in Indian cities has made it viable for companies to promise extraordinary delivery times, often as a loss-leader strategy subsidised by venture capital funding, to lure more customers. There is seldom a labour union or collective bargaining power on the riders’ side, and the labour administration is slow to adapt to these new models.
For consumers, the appeal is irresistible: why wait half an hour when you can have milk delivered in 10 minutes? For companies, the model fuels rapid expansion and investor enthusiasm. But for the delivery personnel, it often means life on the razor’s edge.
Raghav Chadha’s Parliament Intervention
On December 5, 2025, Raghav Chadha stood in the Rajya Sabha and demanded that the government ban 10-minute delivery services, calling them inherently cruel. He argued that these tight deadlines force gig workers to drive recklessly, breaking traffic rules, overspeeding, and putting their lives at stake to avoid penalties such as rating drops, incentive cuts, or even sudden deactivation of their accounts.
Chadha painted a vivid picture of delivery riders as “invisible wheels of the Indian economy” — the silent workforce behind the comforts of modern life. Their conditions, he said, are often worse than those of daily wage labourers. They endure long hours in extreme weather, lack basic safety gear, have no health or accident insurance, and do not enjoy the protections that formal employment provides. He highlighted three key “pain points”:
- The pressure of speed: Gig workers feel compelled to meet impossible delivery windows to protect their ratings and income.
- Harassment from customers: Delays of even a few minutes can invite abuse, threats, and poor ratings that dent earnings.
- Unsafe, precarious conditions: Lack of job security, poor insurance, and the physical strain of daily deliveries. Chadha’s plea was straightforward: the “tyranny of 10 minutes” must end, and the welfare of human beings cannot be sacrificed at the altar of convenience.
Reactions Across the Spectrum
Consumer Enthusiasm vs Worker Welfare
Many urban consumers find the idea of near-instant deliveries irresistible. Blunt’s reaction, expressing amazement at receiving an order in about six minutes, exemplifies this sentiment. He asked rhetorically why delivery in the U.S. took an hour while in India it could be six minutes, celebrating India’s logistical prowess.
But social media quickly juxtaposed his praise with concerns about the underlying labour issues. Users responded that the speed is made possible only because of cheap, abundant labour and lax enforcement of worker protections. Some comments openly called it exploitation-friendly conditions, emphasising that the real story involves people risking their lives for low pay.
Reddit threads reflect a diverse and often passionate public debate:
- Many agree with Chadha’s critique, arguing that no one should have to risk their lives for groceries or snacks. Some suggest more reasonable delivery times, like 30 minutes, and stronger enforcement of traffic rules to protect riders.
- Others point out that these jobs, however risky, provide income where few alternatives exist. They argue that without such opportunities, many urban workers might be worse off.
- A third group questions whether regulating delivery times is the right move at all, suggesting that the focus should instead be on improving minimum wages, insurance, labour rights, and formal protections for gig workers.
The debate reflects a broader conflict: the modern consumer’s thirst for convenience versus the humane treatment of the workforce that makes it possible.
The Logic Behind Quick Commerce
Supporters of ultra-fast delivery argue that it is simply market demand driving innovation. In a hyper-competitive market, companies must differentiate themselves. Fast delivery becomes a branding tool, attracting customers and generating loyalty. With dense urban populations, short travel distances, and smartphone ubiquity, this model can work effectively from a logistical standpoint.
Economists point to the fact that increasing speed often involves dense network clustering, dark stores placed every few kilometres, which reduces travel time. Digital algorithms optimise routes, while dynamic pricing and rating systems motivate riders to complete more deliveries per hour. Low labour costs in India make it possible to subsidise these services, pushing costs to consumers down.
However, critics argue this logic fails when it comes to long-term sustainability. Ultra-fast delivery is expensive, often unprofitable without heavy investment infusions, and critically depends on worker exploitation to keep costs low and performance metrics high. They warn that such a model erodes organisational accountability for worker safety and creates an arms race of ever-shorter delivery promises that no human workforce can sustainably meet.
Exploitation, Risks, and Realities
Human Costs Behind the Speed
Gig workers frequently report that they are treated as expendable resources. Unlike traditional employees, they seldom have guaranteed wages, paid leave, or comprehensive insurance. At best, platforms offer optional accidental coverage or limited perks, often with clauses that reduce liability for the company.
The pressure to meet strict delivery targets can lead to dangerous behaviour on busy city streets. Riders have spoken of feeling compelled to ignore red lights or weave through traffic to avoid penalties tied to ratings and incentives. This not only endangers them but also other road users.
Moreover, customer ratings, often seen as a measure of service quality, have become a weapon against workers. Poor ratings can directly reduce future earning opportunities, creating fear that a single unhappy customer could negate a day’s effort.
Lack of Worker Protections
Under Indian law, many gig workers are classified as independent contractors, a designation that excludes them from protections like a minimum wage, paid sick leave, or unemployment benefits. Although recent labour codes recognise gig workers partly, enforcement is patchy, and real support remains limited.
This regulatory grey area benefits platforms but leaves workers vulnerable. Without collective bargaining rights or union support, individuals have little power to demand better conditions or safety standards.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The debate over 10-minute delivery is more than a niche policy quarrel - it is a reflection of how societies reconcile technological advancements with human rights and dignity. India’s quick commerce boom has brought convenience and economic activity, but it also exposes deep structural issues in labour markets, social protection, and consumer culture.
Chadha’s call for a ban on unrealistic delivery promises is rooted in the belief that human life and safety should not be secondary to a marketing slogan. His intervention pushes the government and society to rethink whether the current model prioritises shareholder value over human welfare.
At the same time, any policy approach must consider the economic realities of gig workers. Simply banning fast delivery without providing alternative employment opportunities or worker protections might inadvertently reduce incomes for millions who rely on this work. Critics of a ban argue that strengthening labour laws, mandating safety standards, and enforcing fair compensation could be more effective than an outright prohibition.
India’s sprint toward ultra-fast delivery reflects the paradox of the modern digital economy: convenience delivered at breakneck speed, yet often at a hidden human cost.
The debate ignited by Raghav Chadha’s parliamentary stand and echoed in public commentary from James Blunt’s casual amazement to social media’s critical reflections forces us to confront a fundamental question: Should instant gratification be worth the risk to those who make it possible?
If the answer is no, then policymakers, platforms, and consumers alike must chart a path that respects both innovation and human dignity, one where convenience does not come at the cost of safety, security, or a basic right to humane work.