Introduction:

In the case of Uber India Systems Private Limited and batch vs State of Karnataka (WA 848/2025, WA 863/2025, WA 906/2025, WA 962/2025, WA 948/2025), the Karnataka High Court is hearing appeals filed by leading bike taxi aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the April 2025 single-judge order banning bike taxi operations in the state until specific guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are notified. The single judge had ruled that in the absence of such guidelines, bike taxis could not legally operate, directing the state government to shut down all bike taxi services by June 16. The appeals argue this decision ignores the needs of thousands of daily commuters, especially women, who rely on bike taxis for affordable, convenient, and safe transportation in traffic-congested cities like Bengaluru.

Arguments:

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, representing women commuters seeking impleadment, told the division bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi that bike taxis are not just affordable but also the safest and most convenient mode for women travelers in urban chaos. She asserted that the ban silences women’s voices, highlighting that women commuters should have been consulted before deciding to end a scheme they heavily depend on. She detailed how other states ensure safety through pre-qualification tests, background checks, restrictions on minors, police verification, and encouraging women riders—practices that demonstrate bike taxis can be operated safely. Kothari cited Rajasthan’s policy, West Bengal’s limited night-time bike taxi operations, and multiple states’ aggregator guidelines that prove bike taxis are safe when regulated. Emphasizing affordability, she argued that fixed fares determined by the state kept bike taxi rides cheaper than autos or cabs, which is essential for working women, students, and low-income earners. She referenced independent reports, including a KPMG feasibility study showing bike taxis as more affordable, faster, and statistically safer than other modes, asserting that data supports their safety claims. Kothari insisted the ban failed to consider real-life commuting struggles, adding that women should not be denied an option that helps them reach workplaces, schools, and homes safely, punctually, and economically.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Uday Holla, appearing for Uber, argued that cities like Chennai in Tamil Nadu, which had earlier banned bike taxis, have reversed the decision and now permit them; Kerala too has allowed bike taxis, recognizing their role in enhancing mobility. Holla highlighted Bengaluru’s severe traffic congestion and lack of last-mile connectivity, pointing out that while cities like Tokyo or London have dense metro networks, Bengaluru’s two operational metro lines cannot meet the commuting demands of its sprawling population. He recalled his childhood when it took 20 minutes to cross Bengaluru, compared to the current 3-4 hours during peak hours, painting a grim picture of a city crippled by traffic, which he argued makes affordable, quick options like bike taxis indispensable. Addressing safety concerns raised by an expert committee in 2019—which had recommended bike taxis should not operate in Bengaluru—Holla dismissed the notion that bike taxis compromise women’s safety as a “bogey” manufactured under pressure from powerful auto unions threatened by bike taxi competition. He maintained that no data shows bike taxis are inherently unsafe; rather, their flexibility helps reduce congestion and provides economical mobility. Holla further argued that individual bike riders cannot be denied registration and that aggregators merely connect riders and passengers, which should not be equated with illegal operations. He stressed that since bike taxis stopped operating, Bengaluru has seen an 18% spike in traffic congestion as commuters resort to personal cars. This surge, he said, directly contradicts the state’s urban mobility goals and highlights the need for alternative transport options. Responding to the bench’s queries on feasibility, Holla pointed out global practices such as London’s congestion pricing and reduced car usage through reliable public transport and ride-hailing services like Uber. He argued Bengaluru must modernize its transport approach instead of reverting to outdated restrictions, saying that refusing aggregators’ bike taxi operations only exacerbates the city’s notorious traffic woes, stifles economic activity, and disproportionately impacts low-income residents who can least afford costlier cabs or autos.

On the government’s side, represented by the State’s counsel, arguments reiterated the single judge’s finding that without notified guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act and related Rules, aggregators have no statutory right to run bike taxi operations, and the state has a responsibility to ensure safety and legality before allowing widespread operations of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. The State pointed to the absence of a regulatory framework specific to bike taxis, expressing concern that unregulated operations could compromise road safety and create enforcement difficulties. It argued that a policy vacuum cannot justify permitting private companies to operate without clear standards, potentially jeopardizing passenger safety and fair competition with other modes like auto-rickshaws, which are heavily regulated. The State also questioned the reliability of studies cited by the petitioners, emphasizing that until guidelines are framed, bike taxis pose administrative and legal challenges, including insurance coverage gaps, safety liabilities, and compliance oversight. The State submitted that while bike taxis may address last-mile connectivity, such benefits cannot override statutory requirements or the need for a comprehensive regulatory structure to protect public interest.

Judgement:

After detailed arguments from both sides, the division bench reserved orders on whether the petitions from aggregators and women commuters could proceed and if interim relief could be considered. The bench acknowledged the complex issues of commuter rights, women’s safety, affordability, and urban congestion but noted that these concerns must be balanced against the state’s statutory obligations and road safety imperatives. It directed all parties to submit additional materials, including comparative safety data, state policy documents from other jurisdictions, and independent mobility reports, before the next hearing. The court made clear it aims to carefully assess whether the absence of guidelines justifies a blanket ban and whether an interim arrangement could allow operations under strict safety and regulatory conditions until the state frames proper guidelines. The matter remains one of the most watched in India’s transport policy space, as it will shape how India’s largest tech hubs balance innovation in urban mobility with statutory compliance and commuter safety.