Supreme Court junks plea for mandatory ethanol disclosure at fuel pumps
The plea contended that consumers were entitled to know the composition, quality, standards, and compatibility implications of the fuel they purchase
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 31, 2026) refused to entertain a petition alleging an element of “silent compulsion” in the rollout of E20 petrol , and seeking full disclosure of its chemical composition and safeguards for legacy vehicles that may not be compatible with the fuel.
A Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale heard a petition by advocate and petitioner-in-person Narendra Kumar Goswami, contending that consumers had a right to know the fuel’s composition, quality, standards, and compatibility implications. Such disclosure, the plea said, is not a “decorative consumer slogan but a constitutional requirement when the State itself creates a nationwide compulsory market”.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned Mr. Goswami’s locus standi and asked why he had approached the apex court directly instead of moving the High Court first.
“Who are you? You are practising where? Go to High Court and file it,” the Bench said.
Mr. Goswami responded that the petition was not intended to secure any personal benefit but concerned the rights of consumers. “Not to me, to the citizens of India. We have right to know what we are purchasing,” he submitted.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, described the plea as “proxy litigation”, pointing out that the Supreme Court had already dismissed a petition challenging the policy. In September last year, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai had dismissed a plea challenging the Centre’s ethanol-blending policy after the Centre had opposed the petition, maintaining that the policy had been formulated after considering all relevant aspects.
Mr. Goswami, however, said that his plea was not challenging the E20 policy itself but was only seeking disclosure of the ethanol content in petrol.
“I am not challenging the policy. I just want to know. I have the right to know. Even when we buy a packet of biscuits, we know the ingredients”, he said.
The Bench ultimately declined to entertain the petition and granted Mr. Goswami liberty to pursue his grievances before the concerned High Court.
“[Petition] dismissed. Open for petitioner to approach competent authority,” the Bench ordered.
The petition had also sought the constitution of an independent expert committee comprising representatives from the Petroleum Ministry, the Transport Ministry, BIS, and experts from recognised consumer bodies, independent automobile engineers, fuel technologists, environmental experts, public health experts, and water resource experts to examine “real-world E20 compatibility”.
“Direct the respondents [Centre and others] to prepare and publish within a stipulated time an official, public, vehicle-wise compatibility database searchable by manufacturer, model, engine type and year of manufacture, indicating the suitability or otherwise of various ethanol blends for each vehicle,” the plea had said.