https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/advertisment/1734528783_header_adds.gif

Bike taxis are necessity, not luxury: Petitioners in HC

Petitioners in Karnataka HC say bike taxis ease traffic and aid last-mile transit; challenge state ban as unconstitutional and vital service.

PTI

https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/newsimages/maannewsimage25062025_220729_Pageseven (1).jpg
  • Representative image

Bengaluru, 25 June

 

Petitioners challenging the State's blanket ban on bike taxis in Karnataka High Court on Wednesday said that the service plays a vital role in urban mobility and must be allowed to operate under existing legal provisions. "They are a necessity, not a luxury," they said.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi was hearing appeals filed by ride-hailing platforms Ola, Uber, and Rapido, as well as bike taxi owners and associations, against an earlier ruling by a single judge that effectively outlawed bike taxi operations in the State.

Advocate Shashank Garg, representing the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, contended that bike taxis serve as an essential function in easing traffic congestion and providing last-mile connectivity.

Citing the state's 2021 E-Bike Taxi Policy, Garg argued that State had already laid the groundwork for such services, and its reversal in 2024 seemed politically motivated.

Garg said the State had the authority to regulate fares, adding that the current rate was around Rs 8 per kilometre. "Bike taxis are often the only mode of transport that can navigate congested areas or reach places inaccessible to cars and even ambulances."

Senior advocate Dayan Chinnappa, representing individual bike owners Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran, questioned the legality of the State's decision to phase out contract carriage permits for two-wheelers.

Citing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, he said, "If the rules permit bike taxis, the State cannot refuse permits arbitrarily. That would be a direct violation of fundamental rights."

The court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for 2 July.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *