Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against E20 Petrol – No Relief for Old Vehicles, Govt Stands Firm

02 September 2025 10:36 AM

By: sayum


“Supreme Court Says No to Challenge on Ethanol-Blended Petrol”, Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questioned the Union Government’s decision to mandate 20% ethanol-blended petrol (E20) across the country.

The matter was heard by a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, who, after hearing submissions from both sides, curtly pronounced: “Dismissed.”

“Older Vehicles Not Compatible, But No Relief”

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat relied on a 2021 NITI Aayog report to argue that E20 fuel causes serious problems for vehicles manufactured before April 2023. He clarified that the petitioner was not opposed to ethanol blending itself, but sought the availability of ethanol-free petrol (E0) for older vehicles.

Farasat pointed out that “only vehicles manufactured after April 2023 are truly compliant with E20 petrol,” and highlighted reports of a “6% drop in fuel efficiency” along with risks of “engine corrosion, premature wear and tear, and rising repair costs.” He also stressed that consumers were not benefiting financially since ethanol, though cheaper, had not reduced petrol prices at the pump.

“Policy Made After Due Thought, Says AG”

Attorney General R Venkataramani, opposing the PIL, did not mince words. He told the Court that the petitioner was nothing more than a “name-lender” with powerful lobbies behind him. Defending the policy, he declared that the programme was framed after considering every aspect and was already bringing direct benefits to India’s sugarcane farmers.

In a strong remark, the AG asked: “Will people outside the country dictate what kind of fuel India should use?”

“Dismissed – One Word Ends the Debate”

After hearing the submissions, the Chief Justice delivered a short order: “Dismissed.” With that, the Court shut the door on any judicial intervention in India’s ethanol fuel policy.

“Petition Claimed Violation of Consumer Rights”

The petition had contended that the absence of ethanol-free petrol violated the fundamental rights of vehicle owners with incompatible engines. It argued that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was being breached since fuel pumps lacked proper labelling and buyers had no informed choice.

It further claimed that while countries such as the United States and European Union ensured the continued availability of ethanol-free petrol, India had denied this option to its citizens.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2025

Akshay Malhotra v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000813 / 2025

 

Latest Legal News