The recent plea by local taxi operators to the Lobo family a politically influential household in the coastal belt of North Goa marks a moment of desperation in the ongoing conflict between traditional taxi associations and the State’s push toward app-based transport aggregation. While the optics of such political interventions remain debatable, the legal viability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the aggrieved taximen against forced enrolment into the Goa Taxi App merits rigorous evaluation.
The State Government’s mandate to require all local taxi operators to register on its designated app, developed in collaboration with a licensed aggregator, ostensibly aims to promote transparency, improve customer service, and integrate tourism-related transport under digital regulation. However, this directive though administratively rational may not withstand constitutional scrutiny if it disregards the freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Grounds for judicial review
The taximen, many of whom operate independently or under legacy associations, have argued that the compulsion to register on a digital platform infringes upon their autonomy and imposes undue financial and operational burdens. The legal validity of this argument finds footing in precedent. In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that any regulation which places an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right under Article 19 must be struck down unless it satisfies the test of proportionality and public interest (Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515).
Should the Goa Government’s app mandate be challenged in court, the first question would concern the reasonableness of the restriction. Under Article 19(6), the State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. However, the key lies in proportionality whether the regulatory mechanism is the least restrictive option to achieve the intended policy objective.
The taximen could reasonably argue that they are not against digital transformation per se, but against a monopolistic structure created by the Government in mandating enrolment through a singular platform controlled by a private aggregator. This may potentially amount to exclusionary practices that affect their livelihood, particularly if technical or language barriers prevent seamless participation.
Legislative framework and
absence of enabling law
Another legal question arises from the absence of a dedicated enabling legislation. The Goa Government’s directive appears to flow not from a legislative act passed by the State Assembly, but rather through an executive notification or government order. In the absence of a robust legislative framework defining the rights, liabilities, and safeguards for both cab operators and aggregators, the mandate may fall afoul of the doctrine of ultra vires.
This principle was underscored by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh, where executive action without statutory support was declared unconstitutional (State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170). Hence, if the mandatory app registration flows solely from executive instructions, the taximen’s challenge gains further strength.
Anti-competitive concerns
Moreover, the legal argument may extend into the domain of competition law. If the aggregator appointed by the State enjoys a preferential position without due tendering or market-based evaluation, the possibility of a violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, concerning abuse of dominant position, may arise. In CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists and Technicians, the Supreme Court reiterated that any arrangement that unfairly distorts market competition must be scrutinised (CCI v. Coordination Committee, (2017) 8 SCC 592).
Precedents supporting PIL admission
Courts in India have historically entertained PILs where matters of livelihood, systemic exclusion, and unregulated policy frameworks are concerned. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that PILs are maintainable when fundamental rights of marginalised groups are violated (People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473). The local taximen economically weaker, digitally underprepared, and mostly unorganised fit within this bracket of vulnerable stakeholders.
The Bombay High Court at Goa, too, has previously shown readiness to entertain PILs involving transport governance and regulatory overreach, provided that the petition is filed bona fide and supported by data, affidavits, and a clear demonstration of harm.
Judicial deference and reasonable expectations
It must be acknowledged, however, that courts may show deference to executive policy-making where public welfare is the objective and no mala fides are evident. But deference is not abdication. If it is demonstrated that the app mandate is neither consultative nor responsive to on-ground concerns, the court could exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to intervene.
Additionally, legitimate expectation, as a principle of administrative law, may be invoked. The taximen have traditionally operated without digital compulsion, and a sudden departure from established practice without phased implementation may violate this principle.
Conclusion
The State Government’s decision to standardise taxi operations via a government-mandated app may be well-intentioned, but it cannot be pursued in disregard of constitutional safeguards, statutory backing, and equitable stakeholder engagement. The absence of a dedicated statute, potential violation of occupational rights, exclusionary structures, and lack of consultative process cumulatively create a legally justifiable cause.
If filed with clarity, public spiritedness, and documentary evidence, a Public Interest Litigation by Goa’s taximen may not only survive the admission stage but also reshape the contours of participatory governance in the transport sector. It remains to be seen whether legal advocacy, rather than political overture, becomes the chosen mode of resistance.
