Karnataka Flags Safety, Insurance Concerns Over Bike Taxis In SC

The Karnataka government has told the Supreme Court that motorcycles lack essential passenger-safety features, raising concerns around accident risks, insurance coverage and women’s safety when used as taxis. 

The arguments are part of the state’s challenge to the Karnataka High Court’s January 23 order, which cleared the way for bike taxi operations to resume. Karnataka moved the apex court against the HC order in April. 

In its petition, the state argued that motorcycles should not be used to carry paying passengers without a comprehensive framework governing safety, insurance, and operating standards. It also cited road congestion, pollution, passenger security, and the higher fatality rate associated with two-wheelers as reasons for restricting bike taxi operations. 

“Motorcycles lack essential passenger safety features that are present in autos and cabs, raising serious concerns, particularly with respect to accident vulnerability, insurance coverage in cases of fatality, and issues of women’s safety,” the petition said, according to Bar & Bench.

Karnataka further argued that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not give operators an absolute right to use any category of vehicle as a taxi. It said the decision to grant contract carriage permits remains within the discretion of transport authorities, which can reject applications on public-safety grounds. 

The state also disputed the HC’s conclusion that motorcycles fall within the definitions of “motor cab” and “contract carriage” under the Act. It maintained that motorcycles are primarily designed for personal use and cannot be treated as vehicles constructed or adapted for the commercial carriage of passengers. 

Karnataka pointed out that the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016 were framed for four-wheeled motor cabs and do not cover motorcycles. 

The state further argued that restricting motorcycles from operating as passenger taxis does not amount to a blanket restriction on their commercial use. Riders can continue earning through delivery and logistics services on platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato, Amazon and Flipkart, it said. 

Such workers are also covered under the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, which provides social security and occupational safety measures. 

“The restriction is not a blanket prohibition on the use of motorcycles for livelihood,” the petition stated.

Karnataka also raised concerns over the implementation of the HC order, arguing that it would effectively require privately registered white-board motorcycles to be converted into yellow-board transport vehicles. The state claimed that its existing regulatory framework does not provide a mechanism for such conversion or dual registration. 

The petition further estimated that restricting bike taxi operations could prevent around 1.39 Mn tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, besides helping reduce traffic congestion and strengthening public transport. 

The state also relied on a March 18, 2026 response by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Rajya Sabha, which stated that the term “bike taxi” is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed under it.

Karnataka argued that the absence of an express prohibition cannot, by itself, create a legal right to operate bike taxis.

What Led To The Dispute?

The dispute over bike taxis in Karnataka dates back to 2019, when aggregators including Ola, Uber and Rapido began facing regulatory hurdles in the state. 

Karnataka banned bike taxi services in March 2024, citing non-compliance with its EV policy. In April 2025, a single-judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad of Karnataka HC  ruled that bike taxis could not operate without a policy permitting such services.

The order was challenged by Ola, Uber, Rapido, motorcycle owners, and the Bike Taxi Welfare Association.

On January 23, 2026, a division bench comprising chief justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice C M Joshi set aside the earlier order and allowed bike taxi operations to resume. The HC directed authorities to consider applications for registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or contract carriages and granting permits to operate them as bike taxis.

The HC held that operating taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It also found that Karnataka’s unwritten prohibition on bike taxis was not a reasonable restriction, particularly as no law, rule or notification expressly prohibited motorcycles from being registered as transport vehicles. 

Karnataka filed its SLP before the Supreme Court on April 22, arguing that the HC had effectively converted the transport authorities’ discretionary power to grant permits into a mandatory obligation. 

The respondents in the petition include Ola parent ANI Technologies, Uber India, Rapido and the Bike Taxi Welfare Association.

Meanwhile, Karnataka is reportedly considering framing a separate policy to legalise bike taxi services. A senior government official told The Economic Times that the SLP focuses on “technical flaws” in the January 23 judgment and does not prevent the state from introducing a policy later.

The legal dispute comes amid continued enforcement against bike taxis in Bengaluru. On August 5, Karnataka’s transport department seized 263 privately registered two-wheelers that were allegedly being used for commercial purposes, including as bike taxis. 

The post Karnataka Flags Safety, Insurance Concerns Over Bike Taxis In SC appeared first on Inc42 Media.