कर्नाटक के पांच ऑटो-रिक्शा और टैक्सी चालक संघों ने कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय (Karnataka High Court) के उस आदेश के खिलाफ उच्चतम न्यायालय (Supreme Court) में विशेष अनुमति याचिका (Special Leave Petition) दायर की है, जिसने मोटर वाहन अधिनियम, 1988 (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) के तहत बाइक टैक्सियों (Bike Taxis) के व्यावसायिक संचालन की अनुमति दी थी।
NEW DELHI — Five key auto-rickshaw and taxi driver associations in Karnataka, alongside an individual commercial driver, have filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a decision of the Karnataka High Court that paved the way for commercial bike taxi operations across the state.
The petitioners have sought an immediate stay on the High Court’s ruling, which directed state transport authorities to process applications for registering motorcycles as commercial transport vehicles and grant them contract carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Parties to the Dispute
The petition in the apex court has been jointly brought forward by five prominent commercial driver trade unions and an individual operator:
- Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Auto Chalakara Sanghatane
- Karnataka Venkategowda Auto Mathu Taxi Chalakara Sangha
- Greater Bangalore Chalakara Sangha
- Karnataka Sarathigala Mahasangha
- Jai Karnataka Sarathi Sene Trust
- Sathish KS (Individual commercial driver)
The petition has been filed through Advocate K Shiva. Notably, the State Government of Karnataka has also separately appealed the High Court verdict before the Supreme Court, highlighting a alignment of interests between the state administration and traditional transport unions against commercial aggregators such as Rapido, Uber, and Ola.
Origin of the Legal Conflict
The dispute traces back to a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi. The High Court had set aside an earlier single-judge ruling that supported the state's suspension of bike taxi operations.
In its ruling, the High Court held that a blanket ban on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The bench clarified that under Sections 2(25), 2(27), and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, two-wheelers configured to carry a pillion passenger for hire fall within the scope of transport vehicles and contract carriages. The court ruled that the state could regulate operations to ensure passenger safety and traffic discipline, but could not impose an outright prohibition simply because the underlying vehicle is a motorcycle.
Core Arguments Advanced Before the Supreme Court
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the driver associations have presented three primary grounds for setting aside the High Court order:
1. Judicial Encroachment on Executive Policy
The petitioners argue that the High Court exceeded its constitutional mandate by effectively creating a regulatory pathway for bike taxis. Transport planning and vehicle categorization, the plea emphasizes, fall strictly within the domain of the State Government and regional transport authorities. The petition asserts that constitutional courts cannot compel a state government to formulate or implement specific transport policies designed to cater to the commercial interests of digital aggregators.
2. Regulatory Disparity and Threat to Livelihoods
A central plank of the challenge concerns the economic impact on Bengaluru's traditional public transport sector. The petition states that over 1.5 lakh auto-rickshaw drivers, taxi permit holders, and regulated transport workers risk immediate financial distress.
Traditional operators are subject to rigorous statutory obligations, including:
- Mandatory commercial driver badges and regular fitness certifications
- Higher commercial insurance premiums and annual state transport taxes
- Capped fares determined by state transport regulatory boards
- Allowing bike taxis to operate without an equivalent, stringent regulatory framework creates severe commercial disparity, undercutting traditional operators who comply with statutory price caps and regulatory compliance overheads.
3. Environmental and Urban Planning Concerns
The petition relies on findings from a 2019 High-Powered Expert Committee report commissioned to study urban transport in Bengaluru. The committee concluded that permitting bike taxis would exacerbate severe traffic congestion, increase road safety risks, lower per-capita road-space efficiency, and contribute to ambient urban emissions.
Current Status
The petition is pending preliminary hearing before the Supreme Court. Should the court grant a stay on the High Court judgment, bike taxi operations across Karnataka will remain suspended pending a final determination on whether motorcycles can legally function as commercial passenger carriers under Indian transport laws.
Description: Five commercial transport driver unions in Karnataka, along with an individual driver, have appealed to the Supreme Court of India against a Karnataka High Court verdict permitting bike taxis. The High Court had directed state transport authorities to process applications for registering motorcycles as commercial transport vehicles and grant contract carriage permits.
The petitioners contend that the High Court encroached upon executive domain by creating policy pathways benefiting private aggregators. They argue that permitting bike taxis threatens the livelihoods of over 1.5 lakh auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers in Bengaluru who comply with strict regulations, capped fares, and higher taxes. Citing a 2019 expert report, the plea also highlights concerns regarding road safety, traffic congestion, and urban pollution. The Karnataka government has filed a parallel appeal.