Karnataka’s bike taxi standoff shows how not to regulate urban transport

‘Oh what a tangled web they weave, when babus set out to micromanage!’ – (With apologies to Sir Walter Scott)

The Karnataka government is tying itself in knots over its decision to ban two-wheeler motorcycles and scooters as taxis, popularly known as bike taxis. And it has only itself to blame for the current mess—even as the livelihoods of an estimated 150,000 bike taxi operators and the daily commutes of lakhs of citizens hang in the balance.

Read this | Mint Primer | Bumpy: Impact of Karnataka High Court ban on bike taxis

Earlier this week, the Karnataka High Court, in an interim order, stayed the implementation of its own directive issued earlier this month banning bike taxis from operating in the state. The court had previously ordered that bike taxis cease operations within six weeks of its ruling. The ban was to take effect from 15 May, which has now been stayed for six weeks.

The state government’s objections to bike taxis stem from two issues. First, it argues that the Motor Vehicles Act, as it currently stands, does not recognize two-wheelers as taxis. It therefore contends that bike taxis are, technically, an illegal service.

The second objection is revenue-based. Three-wheelers and cars operated as taxis pay a host of taxes and fees to state governments and city administrations—for registration, licences, permits, meters and certifications. Motorcycles and scooters currently operating as taxis, on the other hand, are essentially private vehicles that pay a one-time, lifetime road tax.

The first objection is valid. To protect customers, there must be rules and regulations in place regarding which vehicles are allowed to operate as taxis, whether the operator (rider) is properly licensed to drive a two-wheeler, and whether the vehicle is fit for public transport and meets minimum safety standards.

It is not as if the government has any ideological objection to the idea of two-wheeler taxis. In fact, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notified a ‘Rent a Motorcycle’ scheme back in 1997, under which customers could rent a two-wheeler for personal use on an hourly, daily, weekly or longer basis. From there, it is a natural extension to allow a user to rent a two-wheeler for a ride, but be driven by someone else. The same principle applies to rental cars and limousine services in any case.

Further, the Karnataka government even notified an electric bike taxi scheme in 2021, allowing aggregators to operate electric two-wheelers as taxis. This scheme was withdrawn in 2024, citing “safety issues” and “misuse” by aggregators.

Read this | More than half of Uber's 1 million fleet in the country comprises bike taxis and autos

However, bike taxis have faced stiff opposition from autorickshaw operators, who are hardest hit by the cheaper alternative bike taxis offer. Bengaluru has witnessed multiple instances of autorickshaw operators blocking bike taxis and even threatening and assaulting them.

The auto operators are also better organized, with strong, politically well-connected unions. This political patronage and cover is the reason autorickshaws blatantly refuse to travel by metre and fleece customers without fear of blowback. With the possible exception of Mumbai, it is difficult to find any town or city in India where autos accept fares at the authorised and metred rates.

This is why it is difficult to take the government’s protestations about the absence of rules and guidelines as the ostensible reason for the ban at face value. After all, the Karnataka government has had a decade to work out a solution—since Rapido commenced bike taxi operations in Bengaluru as far back as 2015.

Read this | Pavan Guntupalli: On a Rapido ride

In fact, neighbouring Tamil Nadu, which also initially banned bike taxis, is now in the process of framing rules, including regulated and capped fares, restrictions on surge pricing, and stringent requirements for aggregators onboarding bike taxi riders onto their platforms.

So it can be done. The absence of action is actually emblematic of the larger malaise affecting urban public transport in India—particularly when it comes to last-mile connectivity. In most cases, providing that has been largely left to para-transport operators: unregistered e-rickshaws, goods vehicles converted to shared people transport, share autos and the like.

Governments—not just the Karnataka government—have, instead of framing rules and regulations that provide a reasonably level playing field for all types of operators, tended to act in favour of the organized and politically connected taxi and auto unions, and against the interests of the consumer.

Ride-share apps like Ola and Uber grew in India because of the sharp difference in fares they offered compared to the ‘official’ metre rates. Metred taxis (again, Mumbai is the exception) were also increasingly difficult to find, as the supply of taxi permits was tightly controlled by vested interests protecting their turf.

Bike taxis, similarly, created a market for themselves by offering an affordable solution to a pressing need. Banning them will help autos and cabs, but punish the consumer. 

Also read | How to develop bike-taxis (beyond issuing clarifications)

Of course, there are risks involved. Two-wheelers are intrinsically less safe than cars, and marginally worse than autos. But that decision—of high risk versus lower fare—should be left to consumers to make. 

The government should ensure that, at a minimum, bike taxis meet (or preferably exceed) the same KYC requirements and safety standards set for private two-wheelers and other public transport service operators. And it should ensure those rules are effectively enforced. Anything beyond that smacks of overreach.