In recent developments in the battle between the Karnataka High Court and Bike Taxi aggregators, Uber India has told the Karnataka High Court that the state government’s move to ban bike taxi aggregators is legally flawed and economically unsound, LiveLaw reported.
Appearing before the Division Bench in an appeal against a single-judge order that upheld the state-imposed ban, Uber asserted that motorcycles are, by law, allowed to operate as taxis, and if so, the aggregation of such vehicles cannot be arbitrarily blocked.
Senior Advocate Srinivasa Raghavan, representing Uber India, argued that the current regulatory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 93, which governs aggregator licenses, does not exclude two-wheelers from its purview. “I am entitled to my right to do business. Even aggregation is business,” he told the court, adding that denying the right to aggregate when individual bike taxis are legal runs counter to both constitutional freedoms and consumer interest.
Bike taxi services, the company emphasised, are critical for last-mile connectivity in congested urban zones. “Preventing aggregation is not in the interest of consumers,” Raghavan submitted. “A person buys ten bikes and engages riders; the aggregator helps in the process. If bike taxi is allowed, there is no logic in not allowing aggregators.”
Uber also cited the now-defunct Karnataka e-bike policy to highlight regulatory inconsistency. While the e-bike scheme has since been repealed, it previously allowed aggregation of electric motorcycles for public transport, a move the company claims supports the broader legal permissibility of two-wheeler aggregation. “The withdrawal of the e-bike scheme does not invalidate the larger framework under which two-wheelers can be aggregated,” Raghavan said.
He further noted that the state had not taken a formal policy decision to ban bike taxis but was merely relying on a committee report, a move he argued lacked statutory backing. Interestingly, the State Transport Department had earlier rejected a 2019 expert committee recommendation that proposed regulating bike taxis rather than banning them outright, raising further questions about the rationale behind the ban.
When the Bench asked whether a yellow board is mandatory for individual bikes operating commercially and if green board vehicles could be used for commercial purposes without a permit, Raghavan responded that electric two-wheelers are exempted from such permit requirements.
At the heart of Uber’s argument is a larger question that many platform businesses are now grappling with: if individual commercial activity is permitted under law, can platforms that organise and optimise such activity be blocked on a technicality? Uber maintains that such a move not only stifles innovation but also undermines efforts to solve persistent urban mobility challenges. The Karnataka High Court will now hear the state government’s counterarguments on the next date of hearing.