The Karnataka government on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) submitted in the Supreme Court that a State High Court decision to allow bike taxis ignores the low safety standards of motorcycles, higher accident fatality rates, congestion, and their limited utility as public transport vehicles.

The State’s case came up before a Bench headed by Satish Chandra Sharma on Tuesday (August 11, 2026), and was deferred to a later date for detailed consideration.

Karnataka, represented by advocate Sanchit Garga, said the restriction on the use of two-wheelers as taxis was reasonable, proportionate, and in public interest.

“The State has not imposed a blanket prohibition on the use of motorcycles for commercial purposes; rather, it has only restricted their use for carrying passengers. Motorcycle riders continue to have viable alternative avenues of livelihood, including under the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, which provides statutory protection and welfare measures for such workers,” Karnataka submitted.

A Division Bench of the High Court, in January 2026, set aside a Single Bench order of April 2025, which stopped bike taxi services pending the framing of a policy by the State. The Division Bench’s decision, challenged by the State in the apex court, had held that taxi aggregators and individual motorcycle owners possessed a “crystallised right to obtain permits for operating motorcycles as taxis under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”.

The High Court had further held that motorcycles fell within the category of ‘transport vehicles’. It had directed the State authorities to positively consider applications for grant of contract carriage permits for motorcycles.

The State argued that the January 2026 decision of the Division Bench had effectively reduced the discretionary powers of the State and regional transport authorities to grant or refuse permits to a “mere formality”.

“The statutory framework clearly contemplates that the grant of permits is not automatic but subject to scrutiny based on considerations of public safety, suitability of the vehicle, and regulatory preparedness,” the State argued.

The High Court had misconstrued statutory definitions under the 1988 Act by “equating motorcycles with motor cabs and contract carriages, despite the latter being vehicles constructed or adapted for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, which motorcycles are not”, the State said.

“By reading motorcycles into the definitions of motor cab and contract carriage, the impugned judgment creates a vehicle category unknown to the statute and supplies a casus omissus in a regulatory legislation governing public safety… The Division Bench erroneously equates the physical ability of a motorcycle to carry a pillion rider with legal authorisation to carry passengers for hire or reward, thereby conflating physical capacity with statutory permissibility,” the petition said.