Top News

While refusing to pass an interim order for permitting bike taxi operations, the HC cautioned the state government against putting the policy matter in “deep freeze”

The HC also observed that while the state is free to regulate the sector, regulation cannot tantamount to an outright ban

The directions came as a division bench of the HC was hearing a clutch of appeals filed by ride-hailing platforms against a previous order that banned bike taxis in the state

The Karnataka High Court has reportedly given a one-month deadline to the state government to clarify its stand on bike taxi norms.

“After some argument, the Attorney General (AG) 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,” the HC bench noted as per The Indian Express.

The directions came as a division bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi, was hearing a clutch of appeals filed by ride-hailing platforms Rapido, Uber and Ola. The petitions challenged a previous single-judge order that banned bike taxis in the state till specific rules are formulated under the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, the HC reportedly refused to pass an interim order for permitting bike taxi operations. In the same breath, the bench cautioned the state government against putting this policy matter in “deep freeze”.

“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 bench reportedly observed.

As per the report, the Court also questioned the Karnataka government’s decision to impose “de facto prohibition” on bike taxis services in the state, saying that a legitimate trade cannot be banned outright under the Constitution.

The HC also observed that while the state is free to regulate the sector, regulation cannot tantamount to an outright ban. The judges also stressed that the absence of a regulatory framework does not automatically result in prohibition, adding that the state cannot indefinitely refuse to frame a policy while effectively banning the sector.

Noting that while cars and auto rickshaws were permitted as taxis, the Court underlined that excluding bike taxis could raise constitutional concerns under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade).

“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)(g0”.

Meanwhile, AG Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the state, told the HC that the nearly six Lakh bike taxis operating across Karnataka were potentially adding to urban congestion.

Unsatisfied, the Court observed, “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?”.

AG Shetty also reportedly cited the example of Delhi, where the Supreme Court (SC), in a case, had held that bike taxi services could not operate unless the government framed a policy. “Unless rules are framed, operators have no right in law to run bike taxis,” the AG argued.

With the ball now in the state’s court, the HC has set September 22 as the next date of hearing in the matter.

The development comes a month after Bengaluru Police reportedly detained a group of bike taxi drivers for protesting against the suspension of bike taxi services in the state.

At the heart of the matter is the HC banning the operation of such services in the state in April. Subsequently, ride hailing platforms like Rapido, Ola and Uber were asked to halt their operations by June 15. Subsequently, the aggregators filed an appeal, challenging the order.