E-Rickshaws in the Dock: MP High Court Issues Notice on PIL for Strict Rules and Highway Ban

In a move that could reshape urban mobility in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court at Gwalior has admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the unregulated surge of e-rickshaws. A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav issued notice to the Union of India and state authorities on April 18, 2026, in Nisha Gurjar vs. Union of India & Others (WP No. 12718/2026). The court directed respondents to file replies within four weeks, signaling early judicial scrutiny of this burgeoning transport sector.

Road to Regulation: The PIL's Origin Story

E-rickshaws have proliferated on Indian roads over the past decade, offering affordable last-mile connectivity but operating in a regulatory vacuum. Petitioner Nisha Gurjar , represented by advocate Varun Kaushik , argues that neither the Centre nor the state has framed rules to govern these battery-powered vehicles despite their widespread use. This PIL spotlights a classic public interest concern: balancing innovation with oversight in a rapidly evolving transport landscape.

Triple Threat: Petitioner's Core Grievances

The petition boils down to three interconnected issues, as outlined in the court's order:

  1. No Rules in Sight : "Grievance of the petitioner is that e-rickshaw is introduced over roads in last 10 years, but no rules to regulate the vehicle is being framed either by Union of India or by the State Government."

  2. Highway Hazard and Revenue Hit : "A policy is required to be formulated whereby e-rickshaw should not be permitted to run over national and state highways as it poses risk as well as causes loss to the State Exchequer because e-rickshaws are exempted from tax regime."

  3. Uneven Playing Field : "Plying over national/state highways causes regulatory adversity to other permit holders who ply their vehicles over national/state highways."

These points highlight safety perils for slower e-rickshaws amid fast highway traffic, fiscal drain from tax exemptions, and competitive disadvantages for taxed commercial vehicles.

Silent Respondents, Swift Judicial Action

Heard on admission—with appearances from Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar Newaskar for the Union and Government Advocate G.K. Agrawal for the state—the court wasted no time. No detailed counter-arguments were recorded at this stage, but the bench's directive underscores the prima facie merit in the petitioner's claims.

Key Observations from the Bench

The order captures the court's crisp assessment:

"Instant petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation raises three questions, viz..."

Directing action, it mandates:

"Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days, returnable within four weeks. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed to file reply."

What's Next for E-Rickshaws?

This interim order doesn't resolve the PIL but propels it forward, potentially paving the way for comprehensive guidelines. Practical implications loom large: a highway ban could redirect e-rickshaws to city streets, boosting safety and revenue while protecting traditional operators. Future cases may cite this as a benchmark for regulating emerging vehicles under Article 226 writ jurisdiction. As reports note, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has now put e-rickshaws' highway free-for-all under the spotlight—watch this space for replies and rulings.