The Karnataka government has approached the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that paved the way for motorcycles to be registered and permitted as bike taxis, arguing that allowing two-wheelers to carry passengers for hire without a dedicated regulatory framework could compromise passenger safety and insurance protection.
The state has challenged the January 23 judgment of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench, which directed authorities to consider applications for registering motorcycles as transport vehicles and issuing permits for their use as bike taxis.
The matter arose from appeals filed by Ola, Uber, Rapido, motorcycle owners and the Bike Taxi Welfare Association against an earlier order directing bike taxi operators to stop their services until the government formulated a policy permitting them.
In its special leave petition, Karnataka said the High Court had effectively transformed the transport authorities’ discretionary power to issue permits into a mandatory obligation. It argued that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not create an unconditional right to use a particular category of vehicle as a taxi.
Karnataka contended that restrictions on bike taxis were based on concerns including road congestion, pollution, passenger safety and the comparatively higher fatality risk associated with two-wheelers.
The state also disputed the High Court’s interpretation that motorcycles could qualify as “motor cabs” and “contract carriages” under the Motor Vehicles Act. It maintained that motorcycles are primarily intended for personal use and cannot automatically be treated as vehicles constructed or adapted for commercial passenger transport.
According to Karnataka, its On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016, were framed specifically for four-wheeled motor cabs and do not provide for motorcycles.
The government further relied on a March 18, 2026, response by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Rajya Sabha, which stated that “bike taxi” is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed under it.
Karnataka argued that the absence of an express statutory ban could not, by itself, create a legal entitlement to operate bike taxis.
The state also rejected the contention that restricting bike taxis would affect riders’ livelihoods. Motorcycle owners could continue using their vehicles for delivery and logistics services through platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato, Amazon and Flipkart, it said. Such workers are also covered by the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, which provides for social-security and occupational-safety measures.
The government also flagged difficulties in implementing the High Court order, including the absence of a mechanism under Karnataka’s existing framework for converting privately registered white-board motorcycles into yellow-board transport vehicles or allowing dual registration.
It further claimed that widespread use of bike taxis could have environmental implications. According to its petition, restricting such operations could potentially prevent about 1.39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year, while also helping ease congestion and strengthen public transport.
The High Court had, however, held that operating taxis constituted a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It found that Karnataka’s unwritten prohibition on bike taxis amounted to an unreasonable restriction, particularly in the absence of any law, rule or notification expressly barring motorcycles from being registered as transport vehicles.
