Bike taxi ban challenged in K'taka HC citing fundamental rights violation

Two individual bike owners moved the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, challenging a recent single judge ruling that banned the operation of bike taxis in the state.

The petitioners argued that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus.

Represented by Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, the owners argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience.

Appearing before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi, Chinnappa contended that the Motor Vehicles Act allows two-wheelers to be registered as transport vehicles. Therefore, the state government cannot legally refuse to issue contract carriage permits to bikes intended for taxi use.

The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits, he said, adding that contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters.

The ban was earlier enforced through a ruling in April, where a single judge held that without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate. The ruling also barred the Transport department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The order was to be implemented by June 16, after a six-week grace period. 

Referring to the aftermath, Chinnappa argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities, he said.

Arguing on constitutional grounds, Chinnappa claimed that the right to carry on a business is a fundamental right, and the state's blanket ban violates this. If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition, he said.

He also said citizens have the fundamental right to choose their mode of transport: One has the right to say, I prefer a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. The state cannot infringe upon this personal liberty.

The bench was hearing appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the same order.

Chinnappa, appearing on behalf of two independent bike owners -- Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran -- clarified that vehicle registration should not be contingent on being tied to an aggregator.

Chinnappa also argued that while contract carriage permits fall under the domain of state governments, the power to register vehicles lies solely with the central government. He contended that the state has no authority to deny vehicle registration altogether, especially not by singling out two-wheelers.

A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits, he argued.

When asked by the bench if bike taxis in other states are running without issues, the Advocate General responded that while some states permit them in limited numbers under aggregators, none offer unrestricted permits.

Chinnappa rebutted by stating that Karnataka's own aggregator rules allow the inclusion of motor cabs, including two-wheelers.

After extensive arguments, the court scheduled the matter for further hearing on June 25.