1 Dec 2023 2:00 PM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday (1.12.2023) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking for the Union of India and State Governments to establish rules for app-based cab services. The PIL raised concerns about issues such as security, overcharging, and arbitrary ride cancellations by taxi and cab aggregators. The matter was listed before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
At the outset, the CJI enquired about the locus of the petitioner in the matter. He asked– "Who are you, by the way?"
Upon petitioner's response that he was a social activist, the CJI expressed disinclination to entertain the plea, stating that it would be better if a person who was aggrieved by the issue came directly before the court. He said–
"Sometimes the danger is you know, that these social activists are pushed by some business interests. Let some person who is directly aggrieved come here and say that you must frame rules for the aggregators."
However, the petitioner asserted that since the aggregators themselves were not aggrieved by the lack of rules, and instead were benefiting from the same, they would not come before the court. The bench was not convinced and dismissed the petition.
As per the PIL, till date the State Governments have not succeeded in formulating regulations for aggregators in alignment with the amended Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The PIL highlighted various problems arising from the absence of regulations for app-based cab aggregators, including security concerns, unfair pricing practices, and issues with trip cancellations. The petitioner argued that the non-framing of rules violated the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to a chaotic situation and lawlessness in the industry. The PIL emphasized that despite the central government issuing rules in November 2020, most states have failed to implement them, adversely affecting the fundamental rights of the public. The petitioner contended that the amendment to Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act included aggregators' business and called for regulatory measures to protect passengers and drivers from the undue influence of aggregators.
"Non-framing of these rules amounts to a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of which the aggregator companies are not able to provide services to the public at large properly resulting in the violation of the fundamental rights of the people. The framing of rules being a delegated legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the central government has already issued Rules and Regulations in November 2020 immediately after the notification issued for the modification of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act but the majority of states have failed to frame the rules as applicable thereby leading to a chaotic situation and lawlessness," stated the PIL.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Umesh Sharma and Advocate Akhil Rana.
Case Title: Harpal Singh Rana v Union Of India And Ors. | Diary No. 32121-2023 PIL-W