27 January 2026 Legal Updates

Blanket Ban On Bike Taxis Violates Article 19(1)(g); Motorcycles Can Be Registered As Transport Vehicles: Karnataka High Court

(a) Case Title:

• ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Batch

(b) Court:

• Karnataka High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• 23 January 2026

(d) Bench:

• Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C.M. Joshi

Facts of the Case

Taxi aggregators such as OLA, Uber and Rapido, along with motorcycle owners and welfare associations, challenged a State-wide ban on bike taxi services in Karnataka.

Earlier, a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had ruled that bike taxis could not operate unless the State Government framed guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and further directed that all bike taxi services must stop operations within a stipulated time.

Aggrieved by this order, the aggregators and bike owners filed appeals before the Division Bench, arguing that motorcycles are permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act to be registered as transport vehicles and that the State could not impose a blanket prohibition through executive action.

Issues Raised

• Whether the business of operating bike taxis is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
• Whether the State Government can impose a blanket ban on bike taxis without statutory backing under the Motor Vehicles Act?
• Whether a motorcycle can be registered as a transport vehicle / contract carriage under the MV Act?
• Whether such a blanket ban qualifies as a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19(6)?

Contentions of the Petitioners (Aggregators & Bike Owners)

• The right to operate bike taxis is a legitimate business activity protected under Article 19(1)(g).
• The Motor Vehicles Act permits motorcycles to be registered as transport vehicles, and there is no statutory prohibition on granting contract carriage permits.
• The State cannot override parliamentary legislation through executive policy decisions.
• Even if restrictions are permissible, a total prohibition (blanket ban) is unconstitutional and disproportionate.
• Several other States (Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, UP, WB, Mizoram) allow bike taxis, showing that such prohibition is arbitrary.

Contentions of the Respondent (State of Karnataka)

• A motorcycle is not a transport vehicle and cannot be used to carry passengers for hire or reward.
• Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act gives the State wide powers to regulate road transport.
• Allowing bike taxis would raise road safety, congestion and regulatory concerns.
• The ban was a policy decision, and courts should not interfere with executive policy.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

A. Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act

• The MV Act occupies the legislative field under Entry 35, List III (Concurrent List).
• Motorcycles are expressly contemplated as transport vehicles under the Act.
• A motorcycle carrying one pillion passenger for hire qualifies as a “motorcab” and hence a contract carriage.
• A 2004 Central Government notification clearly allows motorcycles to carry one passenger for hire.

B. Constitutional Analysis (Article 19)

• Operating taxis is a legitimate trade, protected under Article 19(1)(g).
• Restrictions under Article 19(6) must be:
  - Reasonable
  - In public interest
  - Backed by law
• A blanket ban fails the test of proportionality and reasonableness.

C. Limits on State Power

• Section 67 MV Act does not confer unguided or absolute power.
• State can regulate permits but cannot impose a total prohibition.
• Regulation must consider:
  - Passenger convenience
  - Road safety
  - Last-mile connectivity
  - Urban mobility needs

D. Rejection of State’s Policy Argument

• No material or data was produced to justify a complete ban.
• If problems exist, less restrictive measures must be adopted instead of prohibition.

Final Verdict

• Appeals Allowed
• Single Judge’s order set aside
• Motorcycle owners allowed to apply for registration as transport vehicles
• State directed to consider permit applications without rejecting them merely because the vehicle is a motorcycle
• Aggregators permitted to file fresh applications
• Regional Transport Authorities may impose reasonable conditions under Section 74(2) MV Act

Legal Principles Established

1. Right to Trade (Article 19(1)(g)

• Any lawful business activity is constitutionally protected.
• State interference must satisfy reasonableness under Article 19(6).

2. Doctrine of Proportionality

• A restriction must be the least restrictive measure.
• Blanket bans are unconstitutional unless strictly necessary.

3. Statutory Supremacy

• Executive policy cannot override a central statute.
• MV Act prevails over State executive action.

4. Regulation vs Prohibition

• Regulation is permissible
• Total prohibition is not, unless explicitly authorised by law.

5. Interpretation of Transport Vehicle

• Any vehicle capable of carrying passengers for hire can qualify as a transport vehicle unless expressly excluded.

Leniency Has No Place In POCSO Cases; Child’s Consent Legally Irrelevant At Bail Stage: P&H High Court

(a) Case Title:

• XXX v. State of Haryana (Regular Bail Petition)

(d) Court:

• Punjab & Haryana High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• 22nd January 2026

(d) Bench:

• Justice Neerja K. Kalson

Facts of the Case

An FIR was registered in 2024 at Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, on the complaint of the mother of a 13-year-old girl, who reported her daughter missing and suspected that the accused had enticed her away. The suspicion was strengthened when the accused was also found missing from his residence.

The accused was arrested on 25.12.2024. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 04.04.2025, and the matter was committed to trial. During trial, the minor victim was examined and fully supported the prosecution case, stating that the accused took her to Delhi and parts of Uttar Pradesh, kept her in rented accommodations, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

The accused filed a regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, contending that he had been in custody for about 13 months and that only 5 out of 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Issues Raised

• Whether prolonged incarceration alone is a valid ground for bail in serious POCSO cases?
• Whether the victim’s initial statement claiming voluntary departure weakens the prosecution case at the bail stage?
• Whether a minor’s alleged consent is relevant under the POCSO Act?
• What degree of judicial caution is required while granting bail in child sexual assault cases?

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused)

• The accused has been in judicial custody for over 13 months.
• Trial is progressing slowly, with only 5 witnesses examined.
• In her initial statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim allegedly stated that she left home of her own free will.
• Sought bail on the ground of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

Contentions of the Respondent (State)

• The offence is of grave nature under Section 6 POCSO Act.
• The victim is a minor below 18 years, making consent legally irrelevant.
• The victim has supported the prosecution fully during trial.
• No deliberate delay in trial attributable to the prosecution.
• Grant of bail may undermine victim protection and societal interest.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

A. Consent of Minor Is Legally Irrelevant

• The Court emphasized Section 2(1)(b) of the POCSO Act, defining a child as a person below 18 years.
• Law presumes that a child cannot give valid consent to any sexual act.
• Therefore:
  - “Voluntary departure”
  - “Willingness”
  - “Consent” are legally meaningless in POCSO cases.

B. Victim’s Trial Testimony Prevails

• The victim’s sworn testimony before the trial court clearly supported the prosecution.
• Minor inconsistencies or earlier statements do not dilute credibility at bail stage.
• At bail stage, the Court does not conduct a mini-trial.

C. Lenient Approach In POCSO Cases Is Unwarranted

• The POCSO Act creates a special and stringent statutory framework.
• Courts must adopt a heightened threshold while considering bail.
• Protection of child victims outweighs the accused’s claim to liberty at this stage.

D. Length of Custody Not Sole Ground For Bail

• Serious offences involving sexual assault of children cannot be trivialised on the ground of incarceration alone.
• Trial was progressing and there was no deliberate delay by prosecution.

E. Judicial Role As Guardian Of Children

• The Court held that judiciary has a constitutional and moral obligation to protect children.
• Quoted principle:

“The soul of a society is judged by how it treats its children.”

Final Verdict

• Bail petition dismissed.
• Court held that a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted in POCSO cases.
• Trial court directed to expedite proceedings:
  - Trial to be concluded preferably within six months.
  - At least four prosecution witnesses to be examined on each effective date.

Legal Principles Established

1. Consent Of Minor Under POCSO:

• A child below 18 years cannot legally consent.
• Any plea of voluntariness or willingness is statutorily barred.

2. Bail In POCSO Cases:

• Bail requires greater judicial caution.
• Gravity of offence and victim protection override liberty claims.

3. Length of Custody Principle:

• Prolonged incarceration alone is not sufficient for bail in serious sexual offences.

4. Victim Testimony At Bail Stage:

• Sworn testimony during trial prevails over earlier statements.
• Minor inconsistencies do not affect bail determination.

5. Legislative Intent Of POCSO:

• POCSO is a child-centric, protective legislation.
• Courts must interpret it to advance child safety, not dilute it.