In order to continue operating as an aggregator in the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court ordered Uber to apply for a licence under Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019 within three weeks (on or before March 6, 2023). The Court also gave Uber permission to express its concerns to the State of Maharashtra at the same time. The State government was also urged by the bench to quickly draught aggregator guidelines. A bench made up of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala was presented with the case.

The bench was considering Uber's appeal of the Bombay High Court's March 7, 2022 judgement requiring cab aggregators to adhere to the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. The Central Government issued the Aggregator Guidelines as a result of its authority under Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The aggregators must submit their licence application by March 16, 2022, in order to conduct business in the State of Maharashtra, according to a directive from the High Court panel that included Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Vinay Joshi. The Supreme Court ordered the status quo with regard to the Bombay High Court's order in April 2022 while providing Uber temporary relief in response to the aforementioned order.

But in its ruling today, the Supreme Court declared that the Central Guidelines (Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020) will remain in effect till the State of Maharashtra published or put together its own rules. CJI DY Chandrachud outlined the following order:

"The first proviso to Section 93(1) stipulates that while issuing license to aggregator, the State government may follow the Central government Rules. No rules have been notified by the state government. The central government has formulated guidelines in 2020. In the meantime, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by the impugned order, observed that in view of the statutory mandate of Section 93(1), no person could continue as an aggregator without license. Taking note that the rules are just draft rules, till such time that draft rules are compiled, central rules will hold field. Any person wishing to be aggregator must follow such rules."

This is in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rapido's appeal of the Maharashtra government's decision to deny the firm a licence to operate as a two-wheeler bike taxi aggregator. The court had also stated in its order:

"In terms of the first proviso of Section 93, the state government, while issuing the licence to an aggregator may follow such guidelines as issued by the Central government".

With regards to the Uber's argument stating that the Central guidelines could not be complied with, the court held–

"This is the matter of policy which pertains to jurisdiction of state government. In view of the statutory regime, no person can continue as aggregator in absence of license. We accordingly direct petitioners to apply for license which they may do within a period of 3 weeks which is on or before 6th March."

However, the bench stated that it shall be open to Uber to submit a representation to State government. As per the order–

"The state government shall within a period of two weeks of submission of representation take a view of the grievance. The state government may then take an appropriate decision. In case of any grievance, it shall be open to petitioners to move the Bombay High Court."

While parting with the order, CJI DY Chandrachud orally said :

"The state government, which is a regulator, must take an expeditious decision on the formulation of an appropriate policy. The indecision of state government leads to uncertainty in the business of aggregators, which is best avoided. We also don't want Uber to come to a halt. So we've passed a balanced order."

Case Title : Uber India Systems Private Ltd and Another versus Union of India and others 
Citation: SLP(c) No.5705/2022

Appearance of the Advocates

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
 Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR
 Mr. Nikhil Menon, Adv.
 Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv.
 Mr. Atharv Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
 Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
 Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
 Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.
 Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Adv.
 Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv.
 Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv.
 Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv.
 Ms. Shivani Sanghavi, Adv.
 Mr. Shubham Airi, Adv.
 Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR