Supreme Court Rejects Criticism of Ethanol-Blended Fuel Rollout

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea against the national implementation of 20% ethanol-blended petrol, asserting that motorists face challenges as their vehicles are not designed for such fuel. The plea highlighted mechanical issues and demanded clearer labeling and consumer choice. Government argued the program benefits sugarcane farmers.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the nationwide implementation of 20% ethanol-blended petrol (EBP-20). The lawsuit alleged that millions of motorists are compelled to use a fuel that their vehicles are not designed to handle, potentially leading to mechanical damage.

The bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, rejected contentions from advocate Akshay Malhotra, who had sought instructions for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to ensure availability of ethanol-free petrol at fuel stations. The Attorney General, R Venkataramani, defended the program, emphasizing its benefits for sugarcane farmers.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioner, argued the lack of options for consumers and the potential for engine damage. The PIL called for mandatory labeling of ethanol content at petrol stations and a study on the effects of the fuel blend on non-compliant vehicles. The court, however, dismissed these concerns, maintaining the status quo.

(With inputs from agencies.)