Representative image showing bike taxi service in Karnataka.
Credit: DH Photo/Pushkar V
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday held that a blanket ban on bike taxi services is not compliant with Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (MV) Act.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi ruled this while allowing a batch of appeals filed by Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd, Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd, ANI Technology Pvt Ltd, Bike Taxi Owners’ Welfare Association and certain individual bike taxi owners.
“In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons,” the bench said.
“Considering that the MV Act is traceable to entry 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the power exercised by the State Government cannot militate against the legislative intent of the MV Act,” it further added. The court said there is no statutory rule that prohibits the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles or the issuance of contract carriage permits for motorcycles.
With this finding, the court said the motorcycle owners are at liberty to file applications for registration of their vehicles as transport vehicles (yellow board), while directing the state government to consider such applications for registration and grant of permits. The court also said the authorities are not precluded from examining relevant aspects for vehicle registration and issuance of permits, the same will not be denied on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages.
Insofar as the aggregators, the bench said the concerned authorities shall consider the pending applications of the aggregators and pass appropriate orders. “The aggregators are also at liberty to file fresh applications for licences. In the event such applications are filed, they will be considered in accordance with law and the observations of this Court in this decision,” the bench said.
Bikes fall within the meaning of ‘motorcab’
The court said that a motorcycle used for hire or reward falls within the meaning of a motor cab as defined under Section 2(25) of the MV Act, if the same is used by a person holding a permit for carrying a passenger for hire or reward under a contract, whether express or implied. “..we reject the contention that the motorcycle cannot be used as a ‘contract carriage’. We also reject the contention that a motorcycle falls outside the definitions of a ‘transport vehicle’ as defined under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, or a motor cab as defined under Section 2 (25) of the MV Act,” the bench said.
The state government had contended that as a common understanding, motorcycles are not motor cabs. Since the government has not framed any rules for granting licences for motorcycles to be used as taxis, motorcycle owners cannot use them as bike taxis, it submitted.
The appeals were filed challenging the April 2, 2025, order of a single bench holding that unless the state government notifies relevant guidelines under Section 93 of the MV Act and Rules, the aggregators cannot offer bike taxi services. Though the single bench declared motorcycles to be transport vehicles, it held that no directions could be issued for registering the motorcycles as transport vehicles or for issuance of contract permits.