Govt Breaks Silence On E20 Ethanol 'Experiment' Reports Following Supreme Court Hearing

The Centre has dismissed reports that it described its E20 ethanol blending programme as an “ongoing experiment” before the Supreme Court, insisting the claims misrepresented its submissions.

The clarification comes amid an ongoing legal battle over ethanol allocation, with the government maintaining that the national blending policy remains firmly on track.

Source : ABPLIVE AI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• Law Ministry clarifies EBP programme was not called experiment.
• Reports inaccurately stated E20 program was called an experiment.
• Supreme Court case stems from an ethanol allocation dispute.

The Centre has pushed back against reports suggesting it described its flagship 20 per cent ethanol blending programme as an "ongoing experiment" before the Supreme Court, saying the government's position had been inaccurately reported.

Issuing a clarification on Tuesday night, the Law Ministry said neither the Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme nor the E20 policy was ever referred to as an experiment during the court proceedings. It stressed that reports carrying such claims did not reflect the submissions made on behalf of the Union government, reported The Financial Express.

"At no stage was any submission made that the Government's Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme or the E20 blending programme is an 'experiment'. It is clarified in explicit terms that any suggestion that the Government described the E20 programme before the Supreme Court as an 'experiment' is incorrect and does not represent the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India," the ministry said.

Clarification Follows Reports on Supreme Court Hearing

The government statement came after several media reports claimed Attorney General R. Venkataramani had told the Supreme Court that the E20 programme remained an ongoing experiment and that its full impact would become clearer over the next year.

The Law Ministry dismissed those reports as "completely false", urging media organisations to exercise greater accuracy while reporting judicial proceedings, particularly those involving major national policy initiatives.

The clarification followed a Supreme Court hearing in a dispute over ethanol allocation, where the Centre argued that altering allocations midway through the supply year could affect the existing national framework.

How an Allocation Dispute Reached the Apex Court

The matter before the Supreme Court does not directly concern the merits of the E20 policy itself, but stems from an ethanol allocation dispute involving Karnataka-based VINP Distilleries and Sugars.

The company had participated in a September 2025 tender issued by oil marketing companies (OMCs) for procurement of 1,050 crore litres of ethanol during the 2025-26 Ethanol Supply Year.

Although it bid to supply 9.3 crore litres, it was allotted only 3.9 crore litres, leaving what it described as a shortfall of 6.3 crore litres.

VINP argued before the Karnataka High Court that the allocation was arbitrary because it had invested in a dedicated ethanol manufacturing facility under long-term arrangements with OMCs. As the plant is contractually committed to supplying ethanol exclusively to oil companies, it argued that it could neither sell to other buyers nor easily switch production to alternative products.

The oil marketing companies, however, maintained that the issue arose from contractual obligations and therefore was not suitable for adjudication through a writ petition.

Supreme Court Puts High Court Order on Hold

The dispute has now reached the Supreme Court after Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd challenged the Karnataka High Court's direction asking OMCs to reconsider the company's request for enhanced ethanol allocation.

A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu has issued notice in the matter while directing that status quo be maintained.

The Karnataka High Court had earlier observed that dedicated ethanol manufacturers established under government policy and operating under long-term offtake agreements should not be denied the preferential allocation contemplated under those arrangements.

Centre Warns Against Wider Policy Impact

Representing the Union government, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that revising the allocation for one supplier could have consequences extending beyond a single dispute.

According to the submissions, ethanol contracts for the 2025-26 supply year had already been finalised in October 2025 and allocations communicated to 378 suppliers.

The Attorney General informed the court that nearly 680 crore litres had already been supplied by June 18 against the overall procurement target of 1,050 crore litres.

He argued that granting additional allocation to one producer could trigger similar claims from other suppliers and potentially disrupt the national ethanol allocation framework by opening the door to multiple legal challenges.

Policy Remains Unchanged, Centre Says

With the clarification, the government has sought to separate the contractual dispute currently before the Supreme Court from the broader ethanol blending programme.

The Centre has maintained that its E20 policy continues unchanged and rejected suggestions that it has described the initiative as experimental before the apex court.