Daily commuters in Chandigarh are paying double or triple their usual fare to get around. The reason: all four major cab aggregators in the city remain suspended. With the apps banned, riders are left with only Bharat Taxi, the lone legal operator, or vehicles plying illegally on the roads.
The situation has now drawn political attention. Chandigarh MP Manish Tewari has demanded that the suspensions be revoked immediately. He alleges a "deep vested interest" is behind the decision to keep the four cab apps off the road.
Chandigarh Cab Aggregators Suspension: What Commuters Face
The practical effect of the ban falls squarely on ordinary riders. With the four major cab apps out of service, the normal competition that keeps fares in check has disappeared. Commuters who once booked a ride through an app now face two choices — pay whatever Bharat Taxi charges, or flag down a vehicle operating illegally.
According to The Tribune, commuters are being forced to pay double or triple the usual fare for their daily travel. That means a routine ride now costs two to three times what it did before the suspensions took effect.
Manish Tewari Demands Revocation of Cab App Ban
Tewari, speaking to The Tribune from New York, did not hold back in his criticism of the decision. He said he had repeatedly raised the matter with senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, the Finance-cum-Transport Secretary, the Deputy Commissioner and State Transport Authority (STA) Secretary Nitish Singla, who ordered the suspensions.
"It's the most stupid decision." — The Tribune
The MP went further, claiming that the officials he spoke with privately agreed the move was wrong. According to The Tribune, Tewari said all the officials confided in him that the decision is "absolutely wrong and needs to be revoked," but that something else was holding them back.
His allegation of a "deep vested interest" suggests the MP believes the suspensions are not about regulation or safety, but about protecting someone's business interests at the expense of the public.
Why This Ban Hurts Ordinary Riders Most
The fallout from the suspensions is not spread evenly. It hits daily commuters hardest — people who depend on affordable, reliable rides to get to work, school, or the market. They are the ones absorbing the doubled and tripled fares every day the ban continues.
- Four major cab aggregators remain suspended in Chandigarh
- Bharat Taxi is the only legal operator still running
- Illegal vehicles are filling the gap left by the banned apps
- Commuters pay double or triple the usual fare
- MP Manish Tewari has demanded immediate revocation of the suspensions
Our Take: A Ban That Punishes the Wrong People
In our view, this is a clear case of a regulatory decision landing on the wrong shoulders. Whatever the official reason for suspending four cab aggregators at once, the people paying the price are not the companies — they are the commuters of Chandigarh.
To put it plainly, when you remove every major app-based cab service from a city and leave one operator standing, you are not regulating the market. You are handing it over. Double and triple fares are the predictable result, and so is the rise of illegal cabs filling the gap. That is not a safe or fair outcome for anyone.
The MP's claim that officials privately admit the decision is wrong, yet refuse to revoke it, is the part that should worry residents most. If the people who ordered the suspensions cannot publicly defend them, the public deserves to know what is really keeping the ban in place. Tewari's allegation of vested interest may or may not be proven, but the burden of explanation now sits with the authorities.
For readers in Chandigarh, the message is simple: until the suspensions are lifted, your commute will keep costing you more than it should. The demand for revocation is not just politics — it is a basic question of whether the city's transport rules serve the people who use them.
Sources & References
- The Tribune — Report on Chandigarh cab aggregator suspensions, commuter fares, and MP Manish Tewari's demand for revocation
