'Clever Drafting' Cannot Resurrect Time-Barred Suits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Vexatious Plaint No Absolute Right To Choose Route For Religious Procession: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Police Restriction Acquittal In Section 498A IPC Case Does Not Bar Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Calcutta High Court Refuses To Allow Amendment Introducing 'Date Of Knowledge' In Tenancy Dispute Allahabad High Court Rejects 'Attempt To Murder' Charge Citing Absence Of Grievous Injury And Fundamental Prosecution Flaws Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Temporary Acquisition Of Private Helipad, Orders Restoration Of Possession End Of IP Court Shopping?': Delhi High Court Refers Conflict On Territorial Jurisdiction To Larger Bench MACT Cannot Adjudicate Personal Accident; Deceased Tortfeasor's Heirs Cannot Claim From Own Insurer For His Wrong: Gujarat High Court Do Not Shut Doors To Litigants: J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Plaint, Rules Summary Suit Can Be Converted To Regular Recovery Suit Cannot Expect A Spouse To Endure This Forever: Karnataka High Court Upholds Divorce, Defines Limits Of 'Ordinary Wear And Tear' In Marriage Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In ₹9 Crore Cheating Case As Accused Complied With Sharjah Decree Cannot Arbitrarily Value Damages: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Plaintiff Must Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee On Specific Claims Remarriage Of Widow Does Not Disinherit Daughter: Madras High Court 'Fatal Flaw' In Specific Performance Suits: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea For Failing To Plead 'Readiness And Willingness' Section 125 CrPC  | Wife's Convenience Must Be Looked At In Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects State's Plea Against Demolition Of Unauthorized Bus Stand Wall

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