Senior lawyers argue bike taxis are safe, affordable, and preferred by women; Karnataka HC questions State’s policy based on a single report.
Bengaluru: Today, on July 2, the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi, recently heard appeals challenging a single judge’s earlier order that had stopped bike taxi services in the State until proper rules and regulations are in place.
It has drawn national attention, especially for its impact on urban transport and women’s safety.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing on behalf of a woman commuter, strongly opposed the State’s reasoning that bike taxis pose a safety threat to women.
ALSO READ: Bike Taxi Service Suspended: HC Directs Government to Respond to Petitions – Bike Taxi Service
She argued that bike taxis are not only safe but are actually preferred by many women for their affordability and convenience.
In her arguments before the Court, she said,
“Women actually prefer bike taxis. Were their views considered?”
She further pointed out the practical realities women face in public and private transport. Emphasising the relative safety of bike taxis, she told the Court,
“In a crowded bus, I have no control if someone touches me inappropriately. In a taxi, I could be locked in. But with a bike taxi, such constraints don’t exist.”
Advocate Kothari informed the Court that many Indian States have already introduced safety measures to ensure that all public transport services, including bike taxis, are secure—especially for women.
In several States, even women drivers are operating bike taxis. She also referred to regulations adopted elsewhere that allow better safety checks and monitoring of bike taxi services.
On the issue of fare regulation, the counsel said,
“The State will determine the fares, but bike taxis are more affordable. The fares are not only fixed but also clearly displayed.”
She questioned the foundation of the policy halting the services and added,
“The policy is actually based on a 2019 report, and the State’s decision stems from the findings of that report.”
She also referred to various national and independent reports that examined the feasibility of bike taxis and recommended their use, arguing,
“There are multiple national and independent reports that assess the feasibility of bike taxis and actually recommend them. So what is this policy based on? Bike taxis are, in fact, safer for women and more affordable.”
She concluded by stating that platform-based bike taxi services were found to be safer than many other forms of transport. She said,
“Bike Taxis are safe and feasible. Platform driven bike taxi are safer than other modes of transport according to the report.”
She also added that mechanisms exist to ensure choice and comfort for women riders:
“A woman driver can refuse to take a male driver and there are several mechanism for that as well.”
Stressing on the affordability and safety for women, she told the Court,
“This is the best option for women in terms of affordability and safety.”
She further drew the Court’s attention to an article that studied the situation across India and pointed out a telling statistic:
“The answer to whether they would want to ride bike taxi by women was given in affirmative by 72% women and the major concerns of the ones who denied was discomfort of wearing helmet and holding the driver.”
After Kothari concluded her arguments, Senior Advocate Uday Holla began his submissions on behalf of one of the bike taxi aggregators.
He emphasised that several other States, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala, have already allowed bike taxis after initially opposing them. He highlighted the issue of last-mile connectivity in Bengaluru, where only two metro lines are currently functioning.
He pointed out that bike taxis can fill this gap and asked the Court to refer to official data. He said,
“I requested the Court to look at the Ministry of Road Transport’s website, which shows that over one lakh motorcycles and scooters are registered for hire far more than three-wheelers.”
He criticised the State’s reliance on a report by a single individual, saying,
“I pointed out that the State is relying on a report prepared by just one individual, the former metro chairman, to justify its stance.”
Stressing the everyday transport challenges in Bengaluru, he added,
“It takes 3-4 hours to go from one end to another in Bengaluru. Hence it is essential in an urban setup. The women are sitting behind in even four and three wheeler taxis.”
Advocate Holla also addressed the role of aggregators, saying that the State can regulate services but cannot deny licenses to individual riders. He argued,
“As far as aggregator is concerned state can make rules but can’t deny license to riders. Thus state cannot make such policy.”
He added that aggregators simply connect passengers with available drivers and should not be treated as the primary operators, stating,
“These days, most people turn to platforms like Uber to book a taxi. Aggregators simply help connect passengers with available drivers within minutes. Individual drivers shouldn’t be restricted, as aggregators are only facilitators. The State needs to reconsider and revise its position on this.”
In a strong closing argument, he pointed out that traffic congestion in the city has worsened since the halt of bike taxis. He said,
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Bike Taxi Riders Detained While Protesting Ban Outside Vidhana Soudha
“Traffic congestion has increased by 18% since bike taxi services were halted.”
When the Court inquired into the reason behind this rise, Holla replied,
“With bike taxis off the roads, more people are using their cars instead.”
The Court also asked how many bike taxis were operating in the city, to which Holla responded,
“Approximately six lakh.”
Background of the Case
The case stems from a legal challenge to a single judge’s order of the Karnataka High Court that halted the operation of bike taxi services in the State.
The court had directed that such services should not be allowed until a clear regulatory framework is established by the State government.
This order directly affected companies like ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which operates platforms such as Ola, and independent bike taxi riders who rely on these services for livelihood.
The ban was imposed over concerns related to the legality, safety, and regulation of bike taxis, particularly the absence of specific State rules governing their use.
The State argued that allowing these services without a framework could pose risks, especially to women passengers.
In response, several stakeholders, including commuters and aggregators, appealed the decision. They argued that bike taxis are not only affordable and convenient, especially in traffic-congested cities like Bengaluru, but also safe for women when operated through technology-enabled platforms.
They pointed out that many other Indian States have already introduced rules to regulate bike taxis and highlighted the need for last-mile connectivity in urban areas.
Case Title:
Ani Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others (WA 906/2025)
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Bike Taxi Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
