Commissioner’s decision to restrict rickshaws on key city roads sparks livelihood concerns
KARACHI — The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Saturday resumed hearings on multiple petitions contesting the recent ban on Chingchi and motor-cab rickshaws across Karachi’s busiest roads a move that has reignited debate over the balance between easing traffic congestion and protecting the livelihoods of low-income transport workers.
The petition, filed by citizen Imran Zaidi, challenges the notification issued by Karachi Commissioner Syed Hasan Naqvi, which prohibits motor-cab rickshaws including “One Plus Two” and “One Plus Four” variants from operating on 11 major roads. These include Shahrah-e-Faisal, II Chundrigar Road, Shahrah-e-Quaideen, Sher Shah Suri Road, Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Abdullah Haroon Road, Stadium Road, Sir Shah Suleman Road, Rashid Minhas Road, and Mauripur Road.
The ban, initially covering 11 routes, was later expanded to 20 and is set to remain effective until October 15. According to city authorities, the measure aims to curb traffic chaos and streamline vehicular flow across Karachi’s main arteries.
However, the decision has drawn criticism from affected rickshaw drivers and civic activists. Petitioner Zaidi argued that the order has jeopardized the livelihoods of thousands of families relying on these vehicles for daily income. “This ban was imposed without consultation with stakeholders. The law clearly states that such decisions should fall under the jurisdiction of local government bodies not the Karachi commissioner,” he told the court.
Zaidi further pointed out that Karachi’s existing public transport network remains insufficient to meet the city’s needs, leaving commuters with overcrowded buses as their only alternative.
Representing the provincial government, Additional Advocate General Sindh Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi defended the commissioner’s decision, saying it was “fully in line with the Sindh Motor Vehicle Act” and enacted under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which empowers authorities to issue temporary restrictions in the interest of public safety and order.
Abbasi added that those violating the order could face legal action under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which pertains to disobedience of lawful government directives. “Police actions are lawful and aimed solely at maintaining order, not driven by personal motives,” he told the bench.
During earlier proceedings, lawyers representing the petitioners, including Salahuddin Ghandapur, criticized the government’s stance, saying, “The authorities seem indifferent to the struggles of the working class. Thousands of poor drivers are being deprived of their means of survival.”
The SHC’s ongoing hearings highlight a growing divide between urban regulation and socioeconomic realities. The Chingchi Rickshaw Association has also filed a separate petition, with the next hearing scheduled for November 11 a sign that Karachi’s tug-of-war between mobility management and livelihood protection is far from over.
