The counsel representing two bike house owners in a case difficult the Karnataka Excessive Court docket order to droop bike taxi operations argued Wednesday that refusing to register automobiles as transport automobiles or problem contract carriage permits for bikes fuels a monopoly for current operators.
“By refusing to register automobiles as transport automobiles or problem contract carriage permits for bikes, the state is successfully denying residents their proper to hold on a lawful enterprise. This creates a monopoly for current operators and stifles competitors, opposite to the Motor Autos (MV) Act’s liberal aims. The market ought to decide viability by way of demand and provide, not state intervention,” argued senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa earlier than the division bench of Justices Kameswar Rao and C M Joshi.
In April, the Karnataka Excessive Court docket dominated that bike taxis can’t be permitted to function with out correct notification of tips below Part 93 of the MV Act. With the order coming into impact on June 16, aggregators Rapido,Uber and Ola have stopped bike taxi operations within the state.
The counsel for bike taxi house owners additionally said that the core problem is whether or not the state can impose restrictions on the operation of transport automobiles, reminiscent of motorbike taxis, by way of government insurance policies or choices that contradict the statutory framework of the MV Act and violate the basic proper to commerce below Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Structure. Article 19(1)(g) ensures each citizen the best to follow any career or keep it up any commerce or enterprise, together with working transport automobiles on public roads.
The petitioners additionally identified that the state argues it may limit the operation of motorbike taxis based mostly on an unwritten or government coverage, citing causes reminiscent of site visitors congestion or safety of current operators reminiscent of autorickshaws.
“The state’s coverage will not be formalised by way of authorities orders or guidelines below the Enterprise Transactions Guidelines. It seems to be based mostly on ad-hoc objections, which can’t override statutory rights,” Chinnappa argued.
The counsel added that if the state argues that extreme automobiles necessitate restrictions, such measures should be enacted by way of laws, not government fiat. “For instance, Singapore’s car quota system is legislated, not imposed by coverage,” he famous.
Story continues under this advert
Throughout Wednesday’s proceedings, advocate Shashank Garg, representing the Bike Taxi Welfare Affiliation, argued that bike taxis serve a significant perform in assuaging site visitors congestion and offering last-mile connectivity. “They’re a necessity, not a luxurious,” he said.
Garg highlighted the Karnataka authorities’s 2021 E-Bike Taxi Coverage, which had initially formalised and supported bike taxi operations, as proof of the state’s prior recognition of their utility. He contended that the state’s abrupt reversal of this coverage in 2024, banning bike taxis, appeared pushed by political motives somewhat than public curiosity. “The 2021 coverage laid a transparent framework for bike taxis, acknowledging their position in city mobility,” Garg said. “The sudden withdrawal smells of political expediency.”
He additional challenged the state’s reliance on a 2019 professional committee report that really useful towards permitting bike taxis in Bengaluru, arguing that the report was rendered out of date by the next E-Bike Taxi Guidelines, which permitted such providers till their sudden revocation. “The state can’t cherry-pick outdated suggestions to justify its actions when its personal guidelines have embraced bike taxis,” Garg asserted.
Addressing the bench’s queries on regulation, Garg clarified that the state holds the authority to control fares, noting that the present price for bike taxis is roughly Rs 8 per kilometre. He emphasised their affordability and utility, stating, “In congested areas or distant places, bike taxis are sometimes the one viable transport possibility, even for vital providers like ambulances.”