Karnataka High Court questions blanket ban on bike taxis

The Karnataka High Court on August 20 questioned whether it was appropriate to impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services in the State, considering that many livelihoods are at stake [ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, and connected matters].

The Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi added that this issue not only affects the livelihoods of bike taxi operators but also commuters. In this regard, the Court orally observed that bike taxis are not a luxury but an essential and affordable mode of last-mile transportation.

The Court was hearing writ appeals filed by taxi aggregators ANI Technologies (which owns OLA), Uber and Rapido, as well as bike taxi drivers who have challenged a single-judge's directive to halt bike taxi services in Karnataka until the State frames rules for such operations.

During Wednesday's hearing of the matter, the State, represented by Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, assured the Court that serious thought is being given to the issue.

"The bike taxi services have been banned for safety reasons. Bike taxi service can be a statutory industry. But, there is no provision in the law for them to run a business unless rules and regulatory measures are framed," he said.

The Court, however, expressed reservations about the government's reliance on the Motor Vehicles Act to justify the present ban on bike taxis.

"A mere lack of regulation cannot be the basis for a blanket ban that deprives thousands of their right to work under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,” the Court orally observed.

It also pointed out that 13 other States permit bike taxis within regulatory frameworks.

AG Shetty further argued that bike taxis may cause traffic congestion. However, the Court did not appear satisfied with this argument, and questioned whether it is the State's case that autorickshaws would cause less traffic congestion than bike taxis.

The Court eventually adjourned the matter till September 22, adding that it would not interfere with the State's policy decision in the matter only if it is not arbitrary.

The Advocate General, in turn, assured the Court that a policy decision would be taken at the highest level.