The Karnataka High Court (HC) on August 20 gave the state government a month to deliberate whether to create a bike taxi policy, saying that “lives are at stake,” according to Live Law.
For context, Rapido, Uber, and Ola have challenged a single-judge order that halted bike taxi services unless rules were framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. M. Joshi heard the case.
The state’s Attorney General said the government would “give serious consideration” to the issue, after which the court adjourned the hearing to September 22.
The court cautioned the government that “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.” However, the judges also refused to grant permission to operate bike taxis in Karnataka.
Bench Questions State’s Stand
The Karnataka HC told the state that trade cannot be banned outright under the Constitution. “Every trade is permissible unless specifically prohibited. You may regulate, but regulation cannot mean complete prohibition,” the bench said, noting that 13 other states already regulate bike taxis. It also asked the government to show proof that bike taxis cause more congestion than autos, pointing out the contradiction with its last-mile connectivity policy.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that bike taxis have “no right in law” without rules, citing the Supreme Court’s Malhotra ruling in Delhi, that disallowed such services until a policy was framed. He also warned that nearly 600,000 bike taxis operate in Karnataka, adding to traffic.
The judges countered that when a business is legal and not specifically banned, the absence of regulation does not make it illegal. They stressed that restrictions must be “reasonable” under Article 19(6) and that the blanket ban was arbitrary. “A blanket prohibition is unconstitutional since bike taxis are a legitimate business… The ban is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g),” they observed. For context, Article 14 ensures equality before law, while Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practice any trade.
Reacting to the observations, Adi Narayan, president of the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, called it an important step towards recognising bike taxis in urban mobility and urged the state to frame rules instead of enforcing a ban. He said the association will work with the government and stakeholders to ensure services operate safely, legally, and sustainably.
Meanwhile, despite the ongoing case, the “bike” option remains available on Uber and Rapido apps in Bangalore, a MediaNama check confirmed on Thursday. The companies have not issued a public statement yet.
Political Divide Over Bike Taxis
The controversy has also seen conflicting positions…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
