Bike Taxis Aid Commuters, Aggregators Ensure Their Access: Rapido To Karnataka High Court; HC Asks State: Is Ban A Conscious Decision?

The Karnataka High Court on Monday continued hearing appeals filed by bike taxi aggregators (Ola, Uber & Rapido) and others challenging a single judge's April 2025 decision, which held that bike taxi services could not operate in the state unless the State Government notified specific guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi heard the matter today and specifically asked the state government whether it had made a conscious decision not to allow bike taxis in the state. Though the State's counsel submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act itself does not permit bikes to be used as taxis, the Court termed this argument as 'thin'. It noted that several states permit bike taxis under the same statute, which is applicable across India. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Uday Holla, appearing for Roppen Transportation Services (Rapido), submitted that the single judge had proceeded on the basis, though it was not pleaded before the Court, that the state government had a policy not to allow bike taxis. He argued that even assuming such a policy exists, it is contrary to the statute, as the statute permits motorbikes to be used as taxis. He further pointed out that various states, including Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Haryana and Orissa, allow bike taxis. Furthermore, addressing the convenience aspect of bike taxis, Holla strongly submitted: "Today, Bangalore Metro has just two lines (in Bangalore)...Bike taxis help commuters and are a matter of easy convenience. The single judge has also said that the State government must be alive to the changes coming in society. Now, how will commuters access motorbikes? Without aggregators, motorbikes will just be running all around. But if there is an aggregator, bikes can be made accessible. You see how convenient bike taxis are, you get one in a minute or two". He also referred to the fact that earlier whiteboards were being issued to bike taxis, and said that if the State were to bring guidelines, a regulatory framework could be established. Further, emphasizing the role of aggregators in ensuring the safety of the commuters, he said: "If aggregators are not there, who will check the background of the drivers? Aggregators add to the entire mechanism...They check the antecedents of the drivers". He also submitted that bike taxis reduce traffic congestion and referred to media reports, which suggested a surge in traffic after bike taxis were disallowed to ply in the state. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Arun Kumar, appearing for ANI Technologies (Ola), submitted that the single judge had misunderstood the nature of the lis as the issue before him was not about the right of the aggregator, but whether the petitioner was entitled to register a vehicle as a transport vehicle and to obtain a carriage permit. He referred to the objectives and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and said that the Act already permits two-wheelers for contract carriage purposes. He added that the only restriction is that the Central Government may limit the number of such permits based on the population of an area (below 5 lakh). Relying on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, he argued that the right to carry on a transport business is a fundamental right, and any restrictions under Article 19(6) must be reasonable and in the public interest. He added: "The executive power can't be exercised contrary to the rules, the Act and someone's fundamental rights". In this regard, he also criticised the State's inaction to take any steps with regard to the interest of the public, which was given as a reason for not allowing the plying of the bike taxis. He submitted: "Here, from 2017 till today, the government has not taken any steps that have been taken in the interest of the general public, and if they had done so, we could have tested it on the anvil of being reasonable. They are not receiving any application to register a vehicle as a transport vehicle. they have also taken away our rights to seek carriage permit". He added that the state was denying the aggregators the right to seek carriage permits, which are otherwise permissible under the MV Act. Kumar also submitted that the State cannot, by executive action, claim to have a larger right and override all these provisions, as that would be in contravention of the MV Act. It was also submitted that under provisions of Law, there can be some restrictions framed, but if the MV Act permits registration and gives a permit, the State cannot disallow the operation of the same as it is in violation of the statute and constitutional guarantees. In essence, Ola's arguments were similar to what was argued by it on July 10. Read more about its arguments here : Right To Ply Bike Taxis Arises From ...

Bike Taxis Aid Commuters, Aggregators Ensure Their Access: Rapido To Karnataka High Court; HC Asks State: Is Ban A Conscious Decision?

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags