The petitioners told the court that bike taxis are a a necessity and not a luxury. The hearing comes in the wake of a 2 April ruling by a single-judge bench, which had directed online aggregators to cease bike taxi operations within six weeks unless specific rules were framed under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act.
Published Jun 25, 2025 | 9:23 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 25, 2025 | 10:45 PM
Karnataka’s bike taxi operators ordered off the roads
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday heard petitions from ride-hailing aggregators challenging the court’s earlier ruling banning bike taxis, which petitioners argue violates constitutional rights and lacks any formal, statutory backing.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 25 June heard a batch of petitions filed by ride-hailing platforms including Rapido, Uber, and Ola, challenging the state’s ongoing ban on bike taxi services.
The hearing comes in the wake of a 2 April ruling by a single-judge bench, which had directed online aggregators to cease bike taxi operations within six weeks unless specific rules were framed under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act.
The ban came into effect on 15 June, affecting an estimated one lakh workers in the sector.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing on behalf of a group of bike taxi owners, began his submission by asserting that the right to use one’s personal vehicle for livelihood is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business, LiveLaw reported.
“There is no statutory bar to using two-wheelers as transport vehicles,” he said, citing both Central and Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, which allow the issuance of contract carriage permits for two-wheelers.
Chinnappa argued that the state’s actions go beyond the statutory framework, and that the so-called policy prohibiting bike taxis was “illusory” and not formally notified.
“The policy is not written anywhere. It is only mentioned in the statement of objections. Even if it existed, it would be contrary to the statute,” Chinnappa submitted.
The bench asked whether the executive could enact a policy in the absence of enabling legislation. In response, Chinnappa said:
“Executive power of state ends when statute begins. You can only supplement the statute.”
He added that the state had withdrawn its 2021 e-bike taxi policy without offering a clear rationale and had failed to demonstrate how it had taken into account a 2019 expert committee report that it now cites in support of the ban.
“Other than withdrawal of e-bike taxi notification issued, there is nothing before us. Thus there is no application of mind. Even the committee report is not shown as it is accepted. Because a year later e-bike taxi policy was introduced. The policy cannot be arbitrary and contrary to law.”
Chinnappa also highlighted that under both state and central aggregator rules, the term “taxi” includes two-wheelers used for hire and reward, and that aggregator guidelines from 2020 allow two-wheelers to operate legally on such platforms.
“I ask for a transport reg and contract carriage permits, this court declared law that I am entitled to it, state refused it and they took decision before the court that we will not give. They disabled my right then is it possible for the state to say how you are using my bike as bike taxi,” he said.
He emphasized that bike taxis were not a luxury but an essential mode of urban mobility:
“Bike taxi is a necessity and not a luxury, milord. We even face this problem in Delhi. Sometimes passengers want a fixed price because they feel meters are tampered. Even car and ambulance are not able to reach in certain areas, bikes are providing that service.”
Another counsel appearing for the petitioners noted that the so-called policy relied upon by the state was based on a limited 2019 study conducted in Bengaluru and could not be applied statewide.
“State policy is in complete vacuum. There is no such policy that exists on ground and nothing is notified. So-called policy which state is relying is based on expert report which confines study to Bengaluru. The e-bike taxi rules (of 2021) completely debunks the expert report which came in 2019,” he said.
The lawyer argued that the real reason behind the withdrawal of the e-bike taxi policy earlier this year appeared to be political, pointing to opposition from auto-rickshaw unions, one of which has also filed an impleading application in the case.
He also flagged the scale of economic disruption, claiming that over six lakh bike taxi owners across Karnataka were affected. “In tier-two and tier-three cities, there are no alternative employment options,” he said.
He urged the court to regulate, not ban, the sector: “I say today put all conditions to me, put all regulations, but my fundamental right cannot be infringed because state does not want to take any action. Any conditions, regulations be taken and all of my data can be taken from the aggregators.”
