Karnataka High Court Lifts Ban On Bike Taxis, Allows Operations Subject To Licensing

Bengaluru (Karnataka): The Karnataka High Court on Friday lifted the ban on bike taxi services in the State, setting aside an earlier single-judge order that had upheld the state government's prohibition on their operations.

A division bench headed by the Chief Justice allowed appeals filed by app-based aggregators, including Ola and Uber, ruling that motorcycles can be used as transport vehicles, subject to permissions under existing laws. The court directed that bike owners or aggregators must apply for the required licences, and the state government is obligated to issue permits in accordance with prevailing legal provisions.

The ruling brings relief to thousands of bike taxi riders who had been affected after services were halted following the High Court's refusal earlier in June to stay the government's ban. The prohibition had triggered widespread protests from gig workers, who argued that the move had severely impacted their livelihoods.

The Namma Bike Taxi Association, which represents bike taxi riders across Karnataka, had repeatedly urged the government to reconsider the ban. In June, the association wrote to Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, seeking his intervention to protect the livelihoods of lakhs of gig workers in the state.

"Over 1,00,000 gig workers in Bengaluru and across Karnataka are losing their right to earn and feed their families because of a blanket ban on bike taxi services," the association said in its letter, describing the ban as a threat to the dignity and survival of riders dependent on the sector for daily income.

Following the crackdown, a delegation of around 110 bike taxi riders from the association met Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao and Dasarahalli MLA S Muniraju in June 2025, urging the government to reverse its decision. The riders submitted a petition demanding legal recognition for bike taxis and a clear policy framework to end what they described as harassment and regulatory confusion.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)