Bike taxi ban has hit over 6 lakh families, Karnataka HC told

Bengaluru: Over six lakh families have been affected across the state because of the ban on bike taxis, the Bike Taxi Welfare Association informed the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday.

It said there are 6.5 lakh bike taxis across the state and six lakh dependent families.

The submission was made before a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi during the hearing of a batch of appeals challenging the single-bench order banning bike taxis.

The hearing has been adjourned until July 2.

The single bench had held that ride-hailing firms cannot offer bike taxis unless the state government notifies relevant guidelines to Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act and rules thereunder.

Senior advocate Shashank Garg, appearing for the association, informed the court that drivers have taken loans and do not have alternative employment.

"They have invested their hard-earned money into buying the vehicles. Some interim arrangements can be made to enable the vehicles to ply by imposing conditions for the safety of drivers and passengers," he submitted.

Responding to the government’s policy decision not to allow bike taxis, Garg called it a complete policy vacuum.

He said the state government ignored the report of a 2019 expert committee while introducing the e-bike scheme in 2021, but relied on the same to withdraw the scheme in 2023.

The committee had only considered the scenario in Bengaluru while making a recommendation against bike taxis, Garg said. "It was more of a political decision to impose a ban more so to benefit auto drivers," he noted.

Earlier, senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for two bike owners, resumed his arguments and said that an executive action in the name of a policy decision violates Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, the fundamental right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

He cited Supreme Court judgments on ensuring the right under Article 19 (1) (g) and said that when the field is occupied by statute, the rights cannot be curtailed merely by executive orders or by stating a policy decision.

He said that action taken to protect the interests of existing players, i.e. autorickshaws, cannot be considered a restriction permissible outside the provision of the statute.