The Karnataka High Court Friday said it has not passed any order allowing bike taxi aggregators to resume operations in the state.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty informed a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi that aggregator platforms had restarted bike taxi services soon after the court’s order on Wednesday.
The bench responded: “We have given no orders. If they have started their business, you can take whatever action you want.” The Court reiterated that its earlier direction only restrained the state from taking coercive steps against individual riders, not aggregators.
Shetty assured the court that individuals would not be harassed. When a counsel for an appellant alleged that bikes had been seized post-order, Shetty replied: “It may not be correct; we will not do it.” The bench then emphasised: “Don’t harass individuals. We have clarified.”
On Wednesday, the state had told the Court that the issue of bike taxis would be examined at the highest level. The next day, however, aggregator apps enabled bookings again.
During the Wednesday hearing, the judges had grilled the government for imposing a complete ban rather than regulating the service. “Today even e-bikes are not allowed. A complete legitimate trade is prohibited. So long as you are permitting a service, you can regulate it. The question is whether regulation would entail complete prohibition?” the bench observed, noting that bike taxis are “not res extra commercium (outside commerce).”
The court deferred the matter by a month, asking the government to decide whether it wants to frame a policy at all. The advocate general clarified that, for now, the state will only decide whether to make a policy, and if so, what form it should take.
Story continues below this ad
The bench refused to pass any interim order permitting aggregators to operate, but asked the government not to take coercive action against individuals.
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.”