Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi High Court

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