By Evangeline Dkhar
“When Policy Exists but Enforcement fails, legality becomes a disadvantage.”
In Shillong, illegal business operations are unfolding in broad daylight with alarming impunity. This troubling reality raises an important question: if such blatant violations can persist in the state’s capital, what might be happening in its outskirts and border regions? At the center of this growing concern is the unchecked operation of unlicensed taxi aggregators, operating in violation of the Meghalaya Taxi Aggregator Operational Rules, 2020. What should have been a regulated and structured sector has instead turned into a space where illegality thrives and accountability remains absent.
These concerns are supported by official reports and government notifications.
The rules governing taxi aggregators in Meghalaya are neither vague nor incomplete. They clearly define an “aggregator” as any platform that connects passengers with drivers for transport services. Whether through mobile applications, websites, or informal digital networks, all such operators are required to obtain prior authorization from the state government before commencing operations. The law mandates licensing, compliance with transport regulations, and adherence to prescribed standards of safety and accountability. In essence, the framework already exists; what is missing is its consistent enforcement.
Despite these clear provisions, numerous unlicensed platforms continue to operate freely. Reports and government notifications indicate that certain app-based services, including bike taxi platforms such as Rapido and Uber (in their two-wheeler operations), have previously been prohibited from operating in Shillong due to regulatory restrictions. Yet, services commonly referred to as “Rapido-type” bike taxis continue to operate in various forms without obtaining the necessary permits. Public representatives have themselves acknowledged the presence of “illegal, non-state aggregators,” highlighting a widening gap between regulation and enforcement.
These unlicensed entities neither pay taxes nor comply with regulatory norms, leading to substantial revenue leakage for the state. In an economy where public resources are crucial for development, such losses are not minor administrative oversights—they are a direct consequence of weak enforcement. More troubling is the risk posed to public safety. The rules require proper driver verification, valid commercial insurance, and strict safety compliance. However, when operators function outside the legal framework, these safeguards are often ignored. What should be a convenient commute becomes a potentially unsafe experience.
At the same time, the plight of licensed and aspiring local entrepreneurs reveals a deeper injustice. Several startups in Meghalaya have attempted to enter the transport aggregator market by following the prescribed procedures. They have complied with documentation requirements, invested resources, and aligned their business models with regulatory expectations. Yet, many of these ventures face prolonged delays in approvals, bureaucratic hurdles, and administrative uncertainty. While they wait, illegal operators continue to expand without restriction.
The challenges faced by local entrepreneurs further illustrate the depth of this problem. A startup such as Jets24x7, which has reportedly adhered to regulatory requirements, continues to face delays in obtaining operational approval. Insights from individuals directly involved in such ventures reveal growing frustration: despite fulfilling all formal conditions, they remain entangled in procedural bottlenecks, while unlicensed operators continue to function without restraint. This disparity creates a system where breaking the law is rewarded and compliance is punished.
The irony is striking. The government continues to promote entrepreneurship, encouraging the youth of Meghalaya to look beyond government employment and embrace private enterprise. Yet, when individuals take that initiative, they encounter systemic delays and inefficiencies. Meanwhile, illegal operators function unchecked. This contradiction sends a damaging message—that integrity and compliance are disadvantages rather than strengths.
This is not merely a regulatory gap; it is a visible failure of governance. As suggested by Marxist theory, systems often end up benefiting those who can bypass them rather than those who follow them. In this case, unregulated operators gain an advantage precisely because they operate outside the system, while law-abiding entrepreneurs are constrained by it.
The consequences are far-reaching. It discourages youth from pursuing legitimate business ventures, stifles innovation, and normalizes informality. Over time, it erodes public trust in governance, as policies begin to appear symbolic rather than effective. A state that aspires to foster entrepreneurship cannot afford such contradictions.
It is important to emphasize that the issue is not the absence of regulation. The Meghalaya Taxi Aggregator Operational Rules, 2020 already provide a comprehensive framework. The problem lies in implementation. Enforcement remains inconsistent, allowing unauthorized operators to function without accountability.
Addressing this crisis requires decisive action. Authorities must identify and shut down unlicensed operators, streamline approval processes for legitimate startups, and ensure uniform application of the law. Transparency, time-bound clearances, and strict penalties are essential to restoring balance. At the same time, genuine entrepreneurs must be supported, not sidelined.
A fair economic ecosystem cannot exist without consistent enforcement. Protecting citizens’ safety, safeguarding state revenue, and ensuring a level playing field must become immediate priorities. The credibility of any policy lies not in its announcement, but in its execution.
Meghalaya stands at a decisive crossroads. It can either uphold the rule of law and create an environment where honest entrepreneurship is rewarded, or allow continued inaction to send a dangerous message—that illegality carries no consequence. The cost of such a message will not only be economic but deeply institutional, eroding trust in governance and discouraging a generation willing to build within the state. If enforcement continues to lag behind policy, the vision of a thriving, self-reliant Meghalaya will remain an aspiration rather than a reality. The time for intent has passed; what is needed now is action.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Sociology, Shillong)
