Supreme Court observed, “Rickshaw pulling is not a choice, it’s a compulsion,” calling it an inhumane practice. It stressed the urgent need for e-rickshaw alternatives and rehabilitation to uphold human dignity and ensure social justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court characterized the practice of manually operated rickshaws as inhumane.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai noted that this is a necessity for survival, not a choice.
The Court emphasized the importance of exploring alternatives such as e-rickshaws and prioritizing the rehabilitation of rickshaw pullers.
During the hearing of a petition related to the T.N. Godavarman case, CJI BR Gavai remarked that no one chooses to pull a hand-rickshaw; it is an inhumane practice. He pointed out that those engaged in this work do so not by preference, but out of necessity.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: “Denying Abortion to Rape Survivors Violates Human Dignity”
The CJI added that permitting such inhumane practices, which compromise the fundamental notion of human dignity in a nation like India, undermines the constitutional guarantee of social and economic justice.
A three-judge bench led by CJI BR Gavai was reviewing the issue.
The Chief Justice expressed regret that even 45 years after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the rights of self-employed rickshaw pullers, the practice of one person pulling another persists in Matheran town.
He questioned whether we are genuinely committed to the constitutional promise of social and economic equality, feeling sad because the answer will probably be no.
He remarked,
“Rickshaw pulling should stop, but livelihood must continue.”
He further asserted that even 78 years post-independence and 75 years after the Constitution guaranteed social and economic justice, the continuation of such practices constitutes a betrayal of the commitment made by the people to themselves.
While he insisted that the practice of rickshaw pulling must cease immediately, he also raised concerns about the livelihoods of those reliant on it for survival.
He noted that a viable solution had been proposed back in 1980, as advancements in technology have led to the development of eco-friendly e-rickshaws.
Expressing concern over a report from the Maharashtra government, the Court remarked that, although government officials may feel pressure, the judiciary remains independent.
The Court acknowledged that Matheran, being a hill station where motor vehicles are prohibited, has relied on hand-pulled rickshaws for a long time.
CJI Gavai stated that the state should devise a rehabilitation plan for rickshaw pullers to ensure they are not left without a source of income. He referenced the e-rickshaw model from Kevadia, Gujarat, where tribal women manage and operate e-rickshaws on a daily basis.
In January 2024, the Supreme Court had clearly indicated that e-rickshaws should only be allocated to those hand-rickshaw pullers who have lost their means of livelihood. In April 2024, the Court mandated a cap of 20 e-rickshaws in Matheran.
By November 2024, the Court criticized officials for irregularities in the distribution of licenses and clarified that e-rickshaw licenses should be granted solely to authentic rickshaw pullers. In February 2025, the Court instructed the Maharashtra government to present a fair and transparent rehabilitation plan within two weeks.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Violation of Fundamental & Human Rights
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995