Bike Taxis A Necessity, Not Luxury: Ola, Uber, Rapido Tell Karnataka High Court

Bike Taxis A Necessity, Not Luxury: Ola, Uber, Rapido Tell Karnataka High Court

The next hearing has been scheduled for 2 July

Bike taxi owners Ola, Uber, and Rapido have challenged the ban by the Government of Karnataka in the Karnataka High Court, claiming that riding services are essential for urban mobility and should operate legally.

The petitioners maintained, "They are a necessity, not a luxury.”

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi was hearing appeals by ride-hailing platforms Ola, Uber, and Rapido, and bike taxi owners and associations, against the April ruling of a single judge, who outlawed bike taxi operations in the state.

The single-judge verdict barred bike taxi aggregators from operating until the Karnataka government formally notified guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The bench had stated that the state transport department was under no obligation to register motorcycles as transport vehicles or issue them contract carriage permits. Accordingly, the order directed a complete shutdown of bike taxi services within six weeks. However, the deadline was extended to 15 June.

Representing the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, advocate Shashank Garg cited the state's 2021 E-Bike Taxi Policy. He argued that Karnataka had already laid the groundwork for such services. He emphasized that bikes and taxis eased congestion and provided last-mile connectivity. However, the state’s reversal of rules in 2024 was politically motivated.

The advocate pointed out the inconsistency with a 2019 expert committee report that recommended against allowing bike taxis in Bengaluru. He added that the report was invalidated by the subsequent E-Bike Rules, which were withdrawn abruptly.

Garg told the court that the state had the authority to regulate fares, which currently were Rs.8 per km. He added, "Bike taxis are often the only mode of transport that can navigate congested areas or reach places inaccessible to cars and even ambulances."

Meanwhile, senior advocate Dayan Chinnappa, representing individual bike owners Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran, questioned the legality of the state's decision to phase out contract carriage permits for two-wheelers.

He cited Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation. "If the rules permit bike taxis, the state cannot refuse permits arbitrarily. That would be a direct violation of fundamental rights," he justified.

Chinnappa stressed that aggregator rules permitted the operation of bike taxis and the state was legally obligated to register the vehicles and issue necessary permits.

"The state cannot stop individuals from registering on aggregator platforms and earning a livelihood. It's unfair to blame traffic woes on bike taxis when the city's population is expanding due to its economic growth. More people mean more vehicles. That's not the fault of bike taxis," he added.