Ethanol, or alcohol, is bound to be a topic sparking intense debates. However, of late, it has become a topic of discussion among an unexpected group- automobile users. The concern here is over the Government mixing ethanol in petrol, the fuel used by a vast majority of middle-class owners in their budget four-wheelers and two-wheelers.
A sizeable section of vehicle owners, both regular owners and driving enthusiasts, are frantically voicing their concerns about the Union Government's Ethanol Blending Program, under which petrol mixed with 20% ethanol has been made the only and default option available in the country. In other words, what is available now across the fuel stations as a regular option is a fuel which is 80% petrol and 20% ethanol. The Government, which aggressively pushed this policy citing that it will reduce the reliance on imported petroleum and will also boost domestic agriculture, achieved the target of E20 in 2025, five years ahead of the original deadline of 2030.
Most owners are concerned about whether the vehicles, particularly those manufactured before 2023, will be compatible with ethanol-mixed petrol. There are also concerns regarding the reduction in fuel efficiency. While the Government has acknowledged that ethanol-blending might reduce fuel efficiency, it has maintained that the reduction is only marginal. The Government also denied that the use of E20 fuel will cause damage to the components of older vehicles.
However, the Government's clarifications have not entirely allayed public concerns, as reflected in the continuing debate on social media. Those anxieties were further fuelled when the Government indicated that it intended to move beyond E20 and introduce higher ethanol blends in the future.
Against this backdrop, it is worth examining how the issue reached the courts
PIL against E20 program
In August last year, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court regarding this issue. The petitioner, an advocate named Akshay Malhotra, did not totally oppose ethanol blending, but sought that users of older vehicles must be given the option of having ethanol-free petrol. The petitioner argued that in jurisdictions such as the United States, Brazil and the European Union, ethanol-free petrol continues to be made available alongside blended fuels, with clear labelling at fuel stations enabling consumers to make informed choices.
Although the 2021 report of the NITI Ayog recommended that the retail price of ethanol-blended fuels should be lower than normal petrol to compensate for the reduction in calorific value, the petitioner pointed out that petrol prices have remained the same, despite the E20 use. The NITI Ayog report had also recorded the opinion expressed by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) that "non-availability of E10 fuel in parallel is a critical concern for existing pool of vehicles". SIAM had recommended that "E10 should be made available on a pan-India basis as protection grade fuel for existing pool of vehicles."
On September 1, 2025, the PIL came before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran for consideration. Though formal notice was yet to be issued on the petition, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared to oppose the matter. The AG's appearance, even before notice, signified the seriousness with which the Centre was opposing the plea. At the outset, the AG questioned the bona fides of the petitioner, saying that he was a "name lender" for outside forces who were trying to derail the Government's policy, which was aimed at boosting local agriculture and saving foreign exchange. The Supreme Court, within a matter of a few minutes, summarily dismissed the petition.
With the Supreme Court dismissing the petition, doors for judicial review over the policy became totally shut.
Re-ignition of the issue
The issue was thus judicially buried with the dismissal of the PIL. However, when the Centre, in May 2026, announced its plan to roll out higher blends, the issue got revived. Around the same time, a case was going on in the Karnataka High Court. It was not concerned with the validity of the E20 policy. It was a petition filed by an ethanol manufacturer seeking that the quota for annual supply of ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies be increased. The petitioner, VINP Distilleries and Sugars Pvt Ltd, got the tender to supply ethanol to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Though the bid was for 9.26 crore litres, the petitioner was allotted a quantitly of only 3.92 crore litres to supply to BPCL for 2025-26. The High Court directed the Oil Marketing Companies to consider the petitioner's plea to enhance the procurement of ethanol.
Challenging the High Court's order, BPCL approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing of the petition in the Supreme Court, an off-the-cuff remark made by the Attorney General gave rise to public speculation. The AG submitted that the ethanol procurement is dependent on the demand. "Every year, there will be either a fall in demand or a spurt in demand. 20% ethanol blending is something which the Government is trying to experiment. So next year October onwards, probably the demand will go down," the AG submitted. Certain media portals latched on to the AG's statement, "20% ethanol blending is the Government which is trying to experiment", and published reports with it as the lead and the headline.
Those reports sparked intense debates amongst social media users, who questioned if the Government was imposing E20 petrol on vehicle owners without a clear idea about its results.
In the wake of the social media controversy, the AG's office has issued a clarification through the Press Information Bureau, stating, "At no stage was any submission made that the Government's Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme or the E20 blending programme is an "experiment."
"It is clarified in explicit terms that any suggestion that the Government described the E20 programme before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as an "experiment" is incorrect and does not represent the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India," the AG's office stated.
However, flat denial of the media reports came under social media scrutiny when the video clips of the AG's statement surfaced. AG Venkataramani told Reuters that he used the term "experiment" in the context of the volume of ethanol supplies, not the ethanol petrol policy itself.