On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the nationwide rollout of 20 percent ethanol-blended petrol (E20), ruling that consumers cannot demand policy changes when the measure is aimed at benefiting farmers. The order was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran after the Union government defended the scheme as an initiative supporting the sugarcane sector.
The Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Centre, remarked, “This petitioner is an Englander (sic). Somebody from outside will dictate what petrol to use. Sugarcane farmers are benefitting from this. Now they will tell us don’t.”
The PIL instituted by Advocate Akshay Malhotra and argued by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, asserted that vehicles manufactured prior to April 2023 are generally incompatible with E20 fuel, and that even some recently manufactured BS-VI compliant vehicles could face engine damage when compelled to use it. The plea stressed that consumers must either be provided with the option of ethanol-free petrol or, at the very least, be clearly informed of ethanol content through proper labelling.
Senior Advocate submitted that “We have to be given an option what we want. We are not against E20 but at least let the supply persons inform that it is so. Some vehicles are not compliant with the same. Only vehicles which have come post April 2023 can tolerate E20.”
It was also contended that ethanol blending leads to corrosion of engine parts, reduced mileage, and premature wear and tear, risks not covered by either warranties or insurance policies, leaving consumers without recourse. The plea further compared India’s approach with that of the United States and the European Union, where ethanol-free petrol or blends with lower ethanol percentages remain available with clear disclosure.
The petitioner had sought directions to guarantee the continued supply of ethanol-free petrol, mandate fuel labelling, enforce consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, and commission a nationwide study on the long-term effects of E20 on vehicles.
The Bench declined to intervene, noting that the ethanol policy was driven by public interest and primarily intended to aid farmers. With the dismissal, the path is now open for the nationwide adoption of E20 without requiring suppliers to provide a non-ethanol alternative.
Picture Source :
