The conversation started professionally enough. A job seeker on a job portal had reached out to a verified recruiter, hoping for an interview. But when she declined to purchase a premium subscription, the tone shifted dramatically. Harassment replaced professionalism, abuse followed rejection—all from an account bearing the platform’s verification badge.
The user had screenshots. The portal had a choice: investigate the misconduct or distance itself from the recruiter. The platform chose deflection, disavowing responsibility for verified accounts it had endorsed. The incident, whilst seemingly isolated, exposes deeper questions about accountability in India’s booming digital recruitment industry.
The wild west of online hiring
India’s job portals operate in a regulatory vacuum. Unlike e-commerce platforms, which face consumer protection laws, recruitment sites largely police themselves. This creates a complex web of relationships where money changes hands from multiple directions—candidates pay for visibility, companies pay for access—yet responsibility remains murky when things go wrong.
“A portal’s responsibility begins the moment a recruiter uses it to post jobs, access candidate data, or initiate contact.”
Subir Sinha, seasoned HR professional
“A portal’s responsibility begins the moment a recruiter uses it to post jobs, access candidate data, or initiate contact,” explains Subir Sinha, a seasoned HR professional managing HR for several startups. The challenge arises when harassment occurs off-platform through relationships forged online. Most portals rely on reactive measures rather than prevention, creating what he calls “glaring gaps.”
The business model compounds these issues. When platforms monetise both sides of the transaction, perverse incentives emerge. “Portals are monetising candidates and companies,” observes Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, a seasoned HR leader who was Chief of HR for companies such as South Indian Bank, National Stock Exchange and SREI group in the past. “In that rush, they’re overselling, which always creates a gap between promise and reality.”
The vulnerability factor
The exploitation particularly affects India’s most vulnerable job seekers. Candidates from modest backgrounds or lesser-known institutions are often told—sometimes subtly, sometimes bluntly—that paying will improve their chances. The implication is clear: payment increases employment prospects.
“Portals are monetising candidates and companies. In that rush, they’re overselling, which always creates a gap between promise and reality.”
Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, seasoned HR leader
“But selection still depends on merit, and no portal can guarantee a job,” Mukherjee notes. Yet the messaging suggests otherwise, preying on desperation. “They’re taking advantage of desperation, just like an astrologer selling hope to someone in a bad phase.”
This creates a tiered system where basic job access becomes commodified. Premium subscriptions promise visibility to five recruiters for one price, twenty for another, a hundred for more. “Basic job access should be free,” argues Sinha. “Paid features should be for efficiency, not opportunity. Otherwise, you’re charging for the air candidates breathe.”
The trust deficit
Unlike established digital marketplaces, job portals lack transparent feedback mechanisms. E-commerce thrives partly because buyers can review sellers, creating accountability through visibility. Recruitment platforms rarely offer such transparency about recruiter conduct, success rates, or complaint histories.
“There must be accountability through transparency.”
Ramesh Shankar, senior HR leader
“If the trust goes, who will come to the portal?” asks Ramesh Shankar, the former HR chief of Siemens, drawing parallels with banking customer service. He advocates for written codes of conduct governing behaviour, language, and ethics for all platform users.
The absence of oversight creates information asymmetries. Companies receive “CV dumps”—large volumes of unverified profiles—whilst candidates interact with recruiters whose professional standards remain opaque. “It’s just a post-box service,” Mukherjee explains. “There’s no vetting, no real value addition, and because there’s no regulation, portals operate in a grey area.”
The technology solution
Industry veterans converge on several potential remedies. Robust recruiter verification should include official identification, business registration, corporate email addresses, and periodic re-certification. For sensitive roles, background checks become essential.
Artificial intelligence could scan job advertisements and communications for harmful content or suspicious patterns. Reporting mechanisms need simplification—prominent “Report Recruiter” buttons, rapid acknowledgment, transparent investigations, and clear outcome communication.
Most importantly, feedback histories should be visible. Just as buyers avoid poorly-rated sellers online, job seekers and employers should access recruiter performance data. “There must be accountability through transparency,” Shankar argues.
The regulatory gap
The current system’s sustainability appears questionable. If e-commerce transactions merit consumer protection, recruitment transactions—where livelihoods are at stake—deserve similar safeguards. “Technically, there should be regulation,” Mukherjee notes, “because there’s money changing hands on both sides.”
The platforms themselves face reputational risks from maintaining the status quo. Every ignored complaint or abusive interaction erodes the trust essential to their business model. As digital natives increasingly demand accountability from online services, recruitment platforms may find their “hands-off” approach commercially untenable.
The broader stakes
The job portal dilemma reflects wider questions about platform responsibility in India’s digital economy. As intermediaries between vulnerable job seekers and potential employers, these platforms wield significant influence over career trajectories and economic opportunities.
The Shine.com incident serves as a case study in how quickly digital relationships can turn problematic without proper safeguards. More concerning is how platforms can evade responsibility for verified accounts they’ve endorsed, leaving users with little recourse beyond police complaints—a daunting prospect for many.
The path forward
The solution likely requires both market forces and regulatory intervention. Platforms that prioritise user safety and transparent practices may gain competitive advantages as trust becomes a differentiating factor. Simultaneously, regulatory frameworks that protect both job seekers and employers could legitimise the industry whilst ensuring accountability.
The recruitment portal business fundamentally depends on trust—a fragile contract between platforms, job seekers, and employers. Every unaddressed complaint and every oversold promise weakens this foundation.
The moment of truth
India’s digital recruitment industry stands at a crossroads. Continued operation as unaccountable marketplaces risks transforming platforms meant to bridge opportunity gaps into exploitation channels. The choice between remaining digital gatekeepers or becoming digital bullies may ultimately determine whether these platforms fulfil their promise or squander their potential in one of the world’s largest job markets.