PSU MD Ineligible To Unilaterally Appoint Sole Arbitrator; General Consent Not 'Express Waiver' Under Section 12(5): Allahabad High Court Testimony Of Chance Witnesses Requires Cautious Scrutiny; Presence Must Be Adequately Explained To Sustain Conviction: Allahabad High Court Decree Holder Can Execute Award Against Guarantor Even If Execution Against Principal Borrower Is Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court NDPS Accused Entitled To Bail If Charge-Sheet Filed Without FSL Report & Tended Later Via Simple Letter: Bombay High Court Cyber Fraud Accused Who Is 'Prime Perpetrator' Cannot Claim Parity With Beneficiaries Who Received Bail: Calcutta High Court Non-Disclosure Of Cash Loan In Income Tax Returns Not A Valid Defence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Non-Examination Of Informant Not Fatal In Corruption Cases If Demand & Acceptance Proved Through Other Evidence: Delhi High Court Trial Judges Must Not Be Mute Spectators; Prosecution Duty To Place Exculpatory Evidence Before Court: Gujarat High Court Failure To Open Sealed Contraband Samples During Trial Vitiates Conviction; Prosecution Must Establish Physical Link In Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court Individual Liberty Must Yield To Collective Interest In Gang Rape Cases: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Denies Bail Able-Bodied Husband Can't Avoid Maintenance By Citing Unemployment; Wife's Employment No Bar To Bridge 'Status Gap': Karnataka High Court Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Absconded For 14 Years; Says Continued Incarceration Unnecessary Since Investigation Is Over POCSO Trial Court Cannot Suo Motu Order Assistance Of Special Educator Without First Assessing Competency Of Victim: Madras High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Cannot Be Rejected On Ground Of Deceased Employee's Service Record If Not In Policy: Madhya Pradesh HC

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