Bike taxis pose safety risks, lack adequate insurance cover: Karnataka tells Supreme Court

Motorcycles lack essential passenger-safety features and their use as bike taxis raises concerns over accident vulnerability, insurance coverage and women’s safety, the Karnataka government has told the Supreme Court.

The State has challenged a January 23 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which effectively lifted a court-ordered ban on the operation of bike taxis in Karnataka.

A single judge of the Court had earlier ordered that bike taxi services be halted until the State comes out with a policy permitting the same. This ruling was challenged in appeals filed by Ola, Uber, Rapido, motorcycle owners and the Bike Taxi Welfare Association.

By the January 2026 judgment, the High Court's Division Bench directed the authorities to consider applications for registering motorcycles as transport vehicles and granting permits to operate them as bike taxis. This ruling has now been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court.

In its special leave petition, Karnataka has argued that the High Court effectively converted the discretionary power of transport authorities to grant permits into a mandatory obligation.

The State said that motorcycles cannot be permitted to carry passengers for hire without a comprehensive framework governing safety, insurance and operational standards.

“Motorcycles lack essential passenger safety features that are present in autos and cabs, raising serious concerns, particularly with respect to accident vulnerability, insurance coverage in cases of fatality, and issues of women’s safety,” the petition said.

It added that the restriction on bike taxis was connected to legitimate concerns such as road congestion, pollution, passenger security and the higher fatality rates associated with two-wheelers.

The State contended that preventing motorcycles from operating as passenger taxis does not impose a complete prohibition on their commercial use. Riders can continue working in delivery and logistics services through platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato, Amazon and Flipkart, it said.

They are also covered by the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, which provides for social-security and occupational-safety measures, the plea added.

“The restriction is not a blanket prohibition on the use of motorcycles for livelihood,” the petition stated.

Karnataka has further argued that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer an absolute right to operate any particular class of vehicle as a taxi. According to the State, the grant of a contract-carriage permit remains subject to the discretion of transport authorities, which may refuse an application on public-safety grounds.

The State also disputed the High Court’s conclusion that motorcycles fall within the definitions of “motor cab” and “contract carriage” under the Act. It maintained that motorcycles are primarily designed for personal use and cannot be treated as vehicles constructed or adapted for the commercial carriage of passengers.

It further said that the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016 were framed for four-wheeled motor cabs and consciously excluded motorcycles.

The High Court, however, had held that plying taxis was a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It found that Karnataka’s unwritten prohibition on bike taxis was not a reasonable restriction since no law, rule or notification prohibited the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles.

Karnataka also relied on a March 18, 2026 response by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Rajya Sabha. The Ministry had stated that the expression “bike taxi” is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed under it. The State argued that the absence of an express prohibition could not be interpreted as creating a positive right to operate bike taxis.

The plea further highlighted what it described as practical difficulties arising from the High Court judgment. It said the ruling contemplated privately registered white-board motorcycles being converted into yellow-board transport vehicles even though Karnataka’s regulatory framework contains no mechanism for such conversion or for dual registration.

The State further claimed that permitting bike taxis on a large scale could have environmental consequences. Its petition estimated that restricting such operations could prevent approximately 1.39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, apart from reducing congestion and strengthening the public-transport system.

While the case was expected to be heard next on August 11, Bar & Bench has learnt that the State has circulated a letter for adjournment.