'Sometimes social activists are pushed by business interests’, says Supreme Court; refuses to entertain a PIL

The PIL contended that state governments have not succeeded in formulating regulations for aggregators in alignment with the amended Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The plea said that 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.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre and state governments to formulate rules and regulations for app-based cab/aggregator services in accordance with the provisions of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said: “We are not inclined to interfere under Article 32 of the Constitution at the behest of the Petitioner who claims to be a social activist”.

The bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits. The plea raised issues such as the absence of security arrangements, overcharging, and arbitrary cancellation of cab rides.

During the hearing, the counsel, representing the petitioner Harpal Singh Rana, submitted that the petitioner seeks rules for the aggregators which regulates the licensing. The CJI asked the counsel, who are you? The counsel replied that his client is a social activist.

The CJI questioned, "What social activist? Why should we entertain such a petition?....sometimes the danger is, you know, that these social activists are pushed by some business interests”.

The CJI said, "Let some person who is directly aggrieved come here and say that you must frame rules for the aggregators”.

The counsel said the aggregators are themselves not aggrieved, they are benefitted, so why shall they come? However, the apex court declined to entertain the PIL. The PIL contended that state governments have not succeeded in formulating regulations for aggregators in alignment with the amended Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The plea said that 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.

Read more