SHILLONG, Sep 24: The All Khasi Meghalaya Tourist Taxi Association’s demand for putting restrictions on Assam tourist taxis ferrying visitors to Meghalaya may not be legally tenable.
The Association raised the demand in the interest of local drivers. However, legal experts said it will face challenges regarding its legal enforceability and alignment with the Constitution of India.
“The problems of the taxi drivers in the state are evident. They are looking for some sort of protection. But imposing restrictions on free movement means there is a restriction on the growth of the sector itself,” Subhasis Chakrawarty, president of Shillong Bar Association, told The Shillong Times, pointing to a potential contradiction in the move.
“There must be a special and good reason for such a law, and it should be practically implementable. Law treats everyone equally, so what is the point of making such a law unless it stands on solid legal grounds?” he said.
Chakrawarty highlighted that besides tourism, broader factors such as thoroughfare and trade could be negatively impacted if special protections are granted solely to local taxi drivers.
In Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, similar protectionist measures have been adopted, where local taxi operators are given preferential rights over those from outside.
These measures were taken up largely to protect local economy and preserve employment opportunities for the locals. While these have not been legally contested, they do not necessarily validate their constitutionality, legal experts argue.
Sanjeev Jindal, another lawyer, focused on the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of movement within the country.
“Article 19 contains provisions which allow for reasonable restrictions. However, whether the proposed restriction on Assam cabs qualifies as ‘reasonable’ is a matter of debate,” Jindal explained.
He said Sikkim and Arunachal put on the restrictions without a legal challenge but the same could be contested in the court of law. “Various constitutional challenges can be raised, particularly under the trade and commerce clause,” he added.
Jindal further commented on the broader economic implications of restricting the free movement of vehicles between states.
“The right to trade and commerce cannot be curtailed easily, especially when it impacts interstate relations. If this restriction is imposed, it could set a precedent for other states to follow suit, which may not always be in the best interest of national unity,” he further stated.
Meghalaya now stands at a crossroads, with the proposal drawing mixed reactions from stakeholders. While the economic argument of safeguarding local taxi drivers holds some merit, the legal challenges may undermine its success if not carefully framed within the limits of the Constitution.
For now, the focus remains on how these restrictions will be enforced and whether they can withstand the scrutiny of the courts.
As Chakrawarty summed up, “What is the point of making a law if it cannot be effectively implemented or challenged in a court? Any form of protection offered to local drivers must be carefully balanced with the larger principles of equality and free movement within the country.”
