"Motorcycles Not Meant To Be Used As Passenger Vehicles”: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court On Bike-Taxi Ban

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday heard appeals filed by Rapido, Uber and Ola against a single-judge order that had barred bike-taxi operations in the State until guidelines were framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty told the division bench that “motorcycle cannot be a transport vehicle”, insisting that the statutory definition does not contemplate its use for carrying passengers or for hire.

The AG argued that “the definition of motorcycle does not say it is intended to carry passengers”, and added that neither the Motor Vehicles Act nor the Rules “envisages a motorcycle which could carry passengers.”

When the Bench pointed out that even the single judge had not endorsed this argument, the AG maintained that he was entitled to advance the contention in appeal. Referring to the impugned order, he reiterated that he could demonstrate that a motorcycle “cannot come within the definition of motorcabs.”

The Court, however, questioned the State with its earlier Electric Vehicle (EV) policy, under which bike-taxis had been permitted. The Bench asked, “If you are saying motorcycle cannot be used for transport, then how was [the EV policy] issued?”

The AG responded that “it was withdrawn,” adding, “all I can say is that we have corrected ourselves.” He clarified that EV motorcycles had been granted a special exemption and that, apart from that policy window, a permit was “mandatory” for any motorcycle treated as a transport vehicle.

The AG submitted that even if a motorcycle were to be considered a transport vehicle, “it is not a passenger vehicle and not to be used for hire or reward.” He rejected the platforms' reliance on the principle that what is not prohibited must be deemed permitted, stating, “It will not hold good, milord.”

The AG referred to Section 67(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, stressing that the provision gives the State Government overriding power to “modify any permit issued under this Act or make schemes for the transportation of goods and passengers and issue licences.”

He argued that this statutory scheme makes it clear that “it is the prerogative or power of the State to permit” the use of vehicles such as motorcycles for commercial transport, and that such permission cannot be assumed in the absence of regulatory frameworks.

The AG asserted that in all 18 States where bike-taxis operate, they do so after specific State-framed regulations were introduced. “The associations cannot speak different languages in two different states,” he said, contending that the companies cannot rely on permissive regimes elsewhere to justify operations in Karnataka.

The Bench, however, noted that the appellants were not objecting to the permit system but only to what they termed a “blanket ban.” The Court observed, “They are saying this blanket ban is not correct. They are not saying that they will not take permits once you allow.” The AG responded : “We will not grant permits because motorcycle is not a passenger vehicle for hire or reward.”

The Bench pressed the State further, observing that the refusal was not being justified on grounds such as congestion, safety or traffic management. “Your only reason is that it is not a transport vehicle,” the Court remarked. The AG maintained, “Ultimately it is not a case of prohibition but regulation,” adding that in “larger public interest” the State must decide whether motorcycles should be used as taxis. He compared the situation to restrictions in Mumbai where autos are barred from certain zones.

The AG also alleged that the case was “driven by aggregators,” claiming that some services continued to operate in violation of court orders. When the Court inquired about the regulatory procedure for aggregators, the AG referred to Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, submitting that aggregators must apply for a licence and that the State may either frame its own guidelines or adopt those issued by the Central Government. The Court responded that if the State had not framed its own guidelines, it would be required to follow the central guidelines.

The Bench then noted that the State was not even permitting electric bike-taxis. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the companies were prepared to take yellow-board registrations and apply for permits. The Court observed, “We will not issue permit, not frame guidelines, so there is a complete ban.” Responding, the AG said the State had taken its decision “after considering various reasons.”

The AG further argued that when e-bike taxis were permitted earlier under the State's Electric Vehicle policy, “they did not run even one e-bike,” and not a single application was received. The Court pointed out that one of the issues flagged by the State was pollution, yet even e-bikes were not being permitted. When asked if there was any material on safety considerations, the AG referred to a committee report, prompting the Court to note that the government had issued the e-bike taxi policy after that report.

With the AG concluding his submissions, the High Court directed that the matter be relisted on November 24.