Imagine needing a ride in Delhi. You wave your hand, and two auto rickshaws stop. You choose one, tell the driver your destination, pay the metered fare, and reach your destination. This seemingly simple scenario is possible, but not always guaranteed in Delhi. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to improve the lives of auto rickshaw commuters by declining a request to lift the cap of 1,00,000 auto rickshaws in the capital, a limit imposed in 2011. The request was made by Bajaj Autos in 2018, but the judges deemed it inappropriate to lift the cap at the behest of a commercial entity, fearing it would reflect poorly on the Court.
While acknowledging the need to increase the cap on auto rickshaws in Delhi, the Court set an impossible condition. The order stated that the cap could only be lifted if the request came from the government or an organization representing the interests of the common man, excluding profit-making companies. History and economic theory suggest such a request is unlikely to come from ordinary citizens. The government is more likely to side with organized groups that effectively represent their interests, like auto rickshaw driver unions. Forming interest groups representing large, diverse populations like auto rickshaw riders, public transport commuters, pedestrians, or taxpayers is extremely difficult. Interest groups thrive when interests are narrow, and benefits are concentrated geographically or occupationally. Auto rickshaw drivers form unions successfully because their interests are specific and focused on protecting the value of their government-issued auto licenses. These licenses are estimated to be worth ₹4,00,000 in secondary markets, while they were initially issued for a mere ₹1,000. Removing the cap would reduce the value of these licenses to zero.
On the other hand, removing the cap would benefit riders through more options, competitive fares, and shorter waiting times. However, these riders are spread across a vast population, making organization difficult. This disparity illustrates the court’s unrealistic precondition for considering lifting the cap, highlighting the tragedy of a missed opportunity.
The Delhi government’s stance during the application hearing is also noteworthy. The government counsel argued against lifting the cap, citing the development of metro and other public transport systems. However, this view contradicts the realities experienced by commuters. Many rely on auto rickshaws to reach metro stations, as Delhi lacks walkable streets, safe crossings, and metro stations conveniently located near destinations. Auto rickshaws bridge this gap, making their services essential. Just as there is no organization representing the interests of auto rickshaw riders, there is also none to represent pedestrians. The commuting experience in Delhi differs significantly from that in, say, Singapore, where residents have the luxury of readily accessible public transport and wide, safe sidewalks. Delhi residents face the additional expense of auto rickshaws due to the government’s failure to provide basic public goods.
The cap on auto rickshaws is often justified by citing congestion and pollution. However, auto rickshaws are part of the solution, not the problem. When the cost and availability of public transport are limited, commuters are compelled to purchase private bikes and cars. Bikes are less safe than auto rickshaws, while cars occupy more road space. Private vehicle emissions contribute significantly more to pollution than CNG-operated auto rickshaws. In 2019, the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, the government agency responsible for addressing pollution in the National Capital Region, also recommended removing the cap on auto rickshaws.
The private gains of smaller, easily organized interest groups like auto unions outweigh the cost imposed on auto rickshaw riders and society as a whole. A crucial opportunity to improve the lives of commuters was lost, even if the request originated from Bajaj Autos, a commercial entity. Saurabh Modi and Kumar Anand work at the Centre for Civil Society, a New Delhi-based public policy think tank.
