‘Lives at stake’: Karnataka High Court grants govt one month to decide on bike taxi policy | Bangalore News

The bench noted, “After some argument, the Attorney General submits that the government will give serious consideration to the issues raised in the present matter. In view of this, we propose to defer the hearing to September 22.”

While the court declined to pass an interim order permitting operations, it also cautioned the state, “In no case, when a decision is being taken, should the state put everything into freeze. The police may continue to take action for other offences, but keep in mind this petition is pending.”

The division bench questioned the government over its decision to impose what the court termed a “de facto prohibition” on the bike taxi business, observing that a legitimate trade cannot be banned outright under the Constitution. During the hearing, the bench noted that while the state is free to regulate the sector, regulation cannot translate into an outright ban.

“Every trade is permissible unless specifically prohibited. You may regulate, but regulation cannot mean complete prohibition,” the court said, pointing out that 13 other states have already framed rules to regulate bike taxis. The court further remarked that if cars and auto rickshaws are permitted as taxis, excluding only motorcycles may raise constitutional concerns under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade).
Govt cites Delhi example

Appearing for the state, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that motorcycles cannot be classified as “transport vehicles” under the Motor Vehicles Act, which distinguishes vehicles through different number plates for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

“Unless rules are framed, operators have no right in law to run bike taxis,” he submitted.

He cited the example of Delhi, where the Supreme Court in the Malhotra case had set aside interim relief allowing bike taxis, holding that such services could not operate unless the government framed a policy. Delhi later introduced a limited policy for electric bike taxis.

Shetty claimed that nearly six lakh bike taxis were operating across Karnataka, potentially adding to urban congestion. He further noted that the government had earlier withdrawn permission for electric bike taxis as well. The court, however, was not satisfied.

“You say congestion is the reason, but is there material to show that bike taxis cause more congestion than autos? Are you suggesting that autos congest less?” the bench asked. It also pointed out the contradiction between the government’s policy emphasis on last-mile connectivity and its prohibition of a service that directly provides it.

The judges stressed that the absence of a regulatory framework cannot automatically result in prohibition.“If a trade is legitimate and not expressly prohibited, the absence of regulation means it is allowed, not banned. Where is the reasonable restriction under Article 19(6)?” the court asked.

It added that the state cannot indefinitely refuse to frame a policy while effectively banning the sector. “Here, you have not consciously prohibited taxis altogether, but have barred one type of taxi. That requires justification. A non-policy that results in prohibition can be arbitrary.”

At one stage, the bench also suggested that if the state was genuinely reconsidering the matter at a policy level, the proceedings could be deferred to give the government time to decide. “We will not dictate how you regulate. Courts intervene in policy only if it is arbitrary or capricious. But today there is no policy, only prohibition,” the bench observed.

Summarising the challenge by the ride-hailing platforms, the court noted, “A blanket prohibition is unconstitutional since bike taxis are a legitimate business. In the absence of regulations, the business cannot be treated as illegal and should be allowed. The ban is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).”