On Monday, August 31, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition that claimed there was an element of “silent compulsion” in the implementation of E20 petrol and requested that fuel stations nationwide be required to disclose the ethanol content in the petrol they sell.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale was considering a petition filed by advocate and petitioner-in-person Narendra Kumar Goswami, who argued that consumers have a right to be informed about the composition, quality, standards, and compatibility effects of the fuel they buy.
The plea asserted that such disclosure is not merely a “decorative consumer slogan” but a constitutional obligation when the State establishes a compulsory nationwide market.
The Bench refused to consider the petition, noting that the petitioner should present his grievance before the appropriate authority rather than coming directly to the apex court.
“Dismissed… The petitioner will remain at liberty to approach the competent authority,” the Bench stated in its short order.
During the proceedings, the Bench challenged Mr. Goswami’s locus standi and inquired why he had moved the Supreme Court directly rather than approaching the appropriate High Court. “Who are you? Where do you practise? Go to the High Court and file it,” the Bench remarked.
Mr. Goswami, however, argued that consumers are entitled to be informed about the ethanol content in the petrol they buy. “We have the right to know what we are purchasing… Even when we buy a packet of biscuits, we are told the ingredients,” he stated.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Centre, contested the petition, characterising it as "proxy litigation" and noting that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed attempts to challenge the government’s ethanol blending policy.
“Your Lordships have already dismissed pleas challenging the policy,” the Attorney General made a submission, citing the court’s previous rulings that dismissed objections to mandatory ethanol blending.
Mr. Goswami clarified that he was not contesting the government’s E20 policy itself, but was requesting that the ethanol content in petrol be disclosed so consumers could make informed decisions.
I am not disputing the policy; I simply want information. I have the right to be informed. Previously, the Attorney General described it as an experiment, and afterward they issued a clarification," he stated.
In September last year, the Supreme Court rejected a public interest litigation that contested compulsory ethanol blending and requested the ongoing provision of ethanol-free petrol for vehicles that cannot use blended fuel.
The Court had subsequently noted the Centre’s argument that the ethanol-blending initiative was integral to its wider energy security and environmental goals, aimed at lowering reliance on crude oil imports and reducing vehicular emissions.
The Centre had firmly resisted the previous challenge too. The Attorney General had characterised the petitioner as a mere “name-lender” and claimed that a powerful lobby was driving the case. He had asserted that the policy was drafted after taking all pertinent factors into account and that it also served the interests of sugarcane farmers.
In 2022, the Union Government revised the National Policy on Biofuels to speed up the gradual blending of ethanol with petrol.
Under the updated policy, the ethanol blending targets were set at
12.06% - 2022–23,
14.6% - 2023–24,
17.98% - 2024–25.
India acheived 20% ethanol blended petrol ahead of its target. However, the programme has faced criticism regarding its possible effects on older vehicles and overall fuel efficiency.
The Centre has dismissed these concerns, maintaining that there is no evidence to suggest that ethanol-blended petrol causes mechanical damage to vehicles.