The counsel representing two bike owners in a case challenging the Karnataka High Court order to suspend bike taxi operations argued Wednesday that refusing to register vehicles as transport vehicles or issue contract carriage permits for motorcycles fuels a monopoly for existing operators.
“By refusing to register vehicles as transport vehicles or issue contract carriage permits for motorcycles, the state is effectively denying citizens their right to carry on a lawful business. This creates a monopoly for existing operators and stifles competition, contrary to the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act’s liberal objectives. The market should determine viability through demand and supply, not state intervention,” argued senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa before the division bench of Justices Kameswar Rao and C M Joshi.
In April, the Karnataka High Court ruled that bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the MV Act. With the order coming into effect on June 16, aggregators Rapido,Uber and Ola have stopped bike taxi operations in the state.
The counsel for bike taxi owners also stated that the core issue is whether the state can impose restrictions on the operation of transport vehicles, such as motorcycle taxis, through executive policies or decisions that contradict the statutory framework of the MV Act and violate the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business, including operating transport vehicles on public roads.
The petitioners also pointed out that the state argues it can restrict the operation of motorcycle taxis based on an unwritten or executive policy, citing reasons such as traffic congestion or protection of existing operators such as autorickshaws.
“The state’s policy is not formalised through government orders or rules under the Business Transactions Rules. It appears to be based on ad-hoc objections, which cannot override statutory rights,” Chinnappa argued.
The counsel added that if the state argues that excessive vehicles necessitate restrictions, such measures must be enacted through legislation, not executive fiat. “For example, Singapore’s vehicle quota system is legislated, not imposed by policy,” he noted.
Story continues below this ad
During Wednesday’s proceedings, advocate Shashank Garg, representing the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, argued that bike taxis serve a vital function in alleviating traffic congestion and providing last-mile connectivity. “They are a necessity, not a luxury,” he stated.
Garg highlighted the Karnataka government’s 2021 E-Bike Taxi Policy, which had initially formalised and supported bike taxi operations, as evidence of the state’s prior recognition of their utility. He contended that the state’s abrupt reversal of this policy in 2024, banning bike taxis, appeared driven by political motives rather than public interest. “The 2021 policy laid a clear framework for bike taxis, acknowledging their role in urban mobility,” Garg stated. “The sudden withdrawal smells of political expediency.”
He further challenged the state’s reliance on a 2019 expert committee report that recommended against allowing bike taxis in Bengaluru, arguing that the report was rendered obsolete by the subsequent E-Bike Taxi Rules, which permitted such services until their unexpected revocation. “The state cannot cherry-pick outdated recommendations to justify its actions when its own rules have embraced bike taxis,” Garg asserted.
Addressing the bench’s queries on regulation, Garg clarified that the state holds the authority to regulate fares, noting that the current rate for bike taxis is approximately Rs 8 per kilometre. He emphasised their affordability and utility, stating, “In congested areas or remote locations, bike taxis are often the only viable transport option, even for critical services like ambulances.”
