Ethanol, or alcohol, is sure to be a topic of intense debate. Recently, however, it has become a topic of discussion among a surprising group of car enthusiasts. The concern here is that the government is blending ethanol with gasoline, the fuel used by the vast majority of middle-class owners in their budget four-wheelers and two-wheelers.
A significant section of vehicle owners, both regular owners and driving enthusiasts, are feverishly expressing their concerns over the Union government’s ethanol blending program, under which petrol blended with 20% ethanol has become the only and standard option available in the country. In other words, what is now available at gas stations as a regular option is a fuel that is 80% gasoline and 20% ethanol. The government, which aggressively promoted the policy on the grounds that it would reduce dependence on imported oil and also stimulate domestic agriculture, met the E20 target in 2025, five years ahead of the original 2030 deadline.
Most owners are concerned about whether vehicles, especially those built before 2023, will be compatible with ethanol-blended gasoline. There are also concerns about reduced fuel efficiency. While the government has acknowledged that ethanol blending can reduce fuel efficiency, it says the reduction is only marginal. The government also denies that using E20 fuel will damage components in older vehicles.
However, the government’s clarification has not completely allayed public concerns, as evidenced by the ongoing debate on social media. These concerns were further intensified when the government said it intended to move beyond E20 and introduce higher ethanol blends in the future.
Against this background, it is worth examining how the matter reached the court.
PIL against the E20 program
A public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court on the issue last August. The petitioner, a lawyer named Akshay Malhotra, was not completely against ethanol blending, but demanded that users of older cars be given the option of using ethanol-free petrol. The petitioner argued that in jurisdictions such as the United States, Brazil and the European Union, ethanol-free gasoline continues to be available alongside blended fuels, and clear labeling at gas stations allows consumers to make informed choices.
While the NITI Ayog report 2021 recommended that the retail price of ethanol blended fuel should be lower than regular petrol to compensate for the reduction in calorific value, the petitioner noted that petrol prices remained the same despite the use of E20. The NITI Ayog report also recorded the view expressed by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) that “concurrent unavailability of E10 fuel is a major concern for the existing vehicle fleet.” SIAM recommended that “E10 be made available on a pan-India basis as a defensive grade fuel for the existing vehicle fleet.”
On September 1, 2025, the PIL appeared before a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai And Justice K. Vinod Chandran for consideration. Although a formal notice on the petition has not yet been issued, Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani seemed to be against it. The appearance of the Attorney General, even before the notice, indicated the seriousness with which the Center opposed this application. Initially, the Attorney General questioned the applicant’s integrity, saying he was a “named creditor” of external forces who were trying to frustrate government policies aimed at stimulating local agriculture and saving foreign exchange. The Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment within minutes.
After the Supreme Court denied the petition, the door to judicial review of the policy closed completely.
Renewed problem
Thus, the issue was resolved through the courts with dismissal of the PIL. However, when the Center announced its plan to introduce higher blends in May 2026, the problem returned. Around the same time, the case was heard in the Karnataka High Court. He was not concerned about the validity of the E20 policy. This was a petition filed by an ethanol producer demanding an increase in the annual quota of ethanol supplied to oil marketing companies. The plaintiff, VINP Distilleries and Sugars Pvt Ltd, was awarded a tender to supply ethanol to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Although the offer was for 9.26 crore liters, the petitioner was allocated only 3.92 crore liters for BPCL’s supply for 2025-26. The High Court has directed oil marketing companies to consider the petitioner’s petition to increase ethanol purchases.
Challenging the High Court order, BPCL approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing of the petition in the Supreme Court, a spontaneous remark by the Attorney General gave rise to public speculation. The attorney general said ethanol purchases are dependent on demand. “Every year there will be either a drop in demand or a sharp rise in demand. The government is trying to experiment with 20 percent ethanol blending. So in October next year, demand will probably decrease.” presented by AG. Some media portals picked up on the Attorney General’s statement: “Blending 20% ethanol is the government trying to experiment,” and published reports in which it was front and center.
The reports sparked heated debate among social media users, who wondered whether the government was pushing E20 petrol on vehicle owners without a clear understanding of the results.
Following the controversy on social media, the Attorney General’s office issued a clarification through the Press Information Bureau, saying: “At no stage was any statement made that the government’s ethanol blended gasoline (EBP) or E20 blending program was an ‘experiment.’
“It is made clear that any suggestion that the government has described the E20 program in the Supreme Court as an ‘experiment’ is incorrect and does not reflect representations made on behalf of the Union of India,” the Attorney General’s office said.
However, the categorical denials of the media reports came under scrutiny on social media when video clips of the attorney general’s statement emerged. A.G. Venkataramani told Reuters he used the term “experiment” in the context of ethanol supply volumes, not the gasoline ethanol policy itself.