Five auto and taxi driver associations in Karnataka have approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging a recent Karnataka High Court decision that allows the operation of bike taxis in the state. This legal move contests the High Court’s January 23 judgment, which directed the state government to process applications for registering motorcycles as transport vehicles and issuing permits for their operation as contract carriages.
The appeal, which includes an individual driver, Sathish KS as a petitioner, has been filed by several key organizations. These include Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Auto Chalakara Sanghatane, Karnataka Venkategowda Auto Mathu Taxi Chalakara Sangha, Greater Bangalore Chalakara Sangha, Karnataka Sarathigala Mahasangha, and Jai Karnataka Sarathi Sene Trust.
The petitioners argue that the High Court’s decision effectively sets a regulatory precedent for bike taxis in a domain traditionally overseen by the state government and statutory transport authorities. They assert that a constitutional court should not mandate the state to formulate or impose a transport policy that benefits business aggregators like Uber and Rapido.
A significant concern raised in the plea is the potential impact on existing auto-rickshaw and taxi operators. The petition highlights that approximately 1.5 lakh drivers and permit holders in Bengaluru could suffer adverse effects if bike taxis are permitted without a comparable regulatory framework. Current operators are already required to adhere to strict permit conditions, fitness norms, insurance mandates, taxation, fare regulations, and licensing requirements. The petitioners argue that introducing a competing category without similar regulatory measures raises issues of fairness and regulatory parity.
The plea also references a 2019 expert committee report that advised against the operation of bike taxis in Bengaluru due to concerns over road safety, congestion, road-space efficiency, and environmental emissions.
More Read
Additionally, the Government of Karnataka has filed its own appeal against the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court has yet to conduct a comprehensive hearing on the matter. The petitioners are represented by advocate K. Shiva.
