The Union government has strongly denied reports suggesting that it described India’s E20 ethanol blending programme as an “experiment” during proceedings in the Supreme Court, issuing a clarification late Tuesday night after the claim sparked controversy.
The clarification came shortly after the Supreme Court stayed a Karnataka High Court order related to ethanol allocation, in a case involving Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The case concerns a directive by the Karnataka HC asking oil marketing companies to consider increasing ethanol allocation to VINP Distilleries and Sugars for the 2025–26 Ethanol Supply Year.
Government Refutes Misreporting of Court Submissions
The Ministry of Law and Justice stated that at no point did the government describe the Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) programme or the E20 blending initiative as an “experiment.” It said such reports were factually incorrect and misrepresented submissions made on behalf of the Union government before the apex court.
The clarification followed media reports that attributed remarks to Attorney General R Venkataramani, suggesting that the E20 programme was still an ongoing experiment and that its full impact would become clearer next year. The government has rejected these claims, calling them false and urging accurate reporting of judicial proceedings, especially in matters involving national policy.
Dispute Over Ethanol Allocation Policy
The Supreme Court case stems from a petition filed by BPCL challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling that directed oil marketing companies to examine a representation from VINP Distilleries seeking higher ethanol allocation.
VINP Distilleries operates a dedicated ethanol production facility supplying denatured anhydrous ethanol exclusively to oil marketing companies under long-term contracts. The company had participated in a tender floated in September 2025 for procurement of 1,050 crore litres of ethanol for the 2025–26 supply year. While it had bid for 9.3 crore litres, it was allocated 3.9 crore litres, leading to a shortfall of 6.3 crore litres.
The company argued that the reduction was arbitrary and inconsistent with its investments made under long-term supply arrangements, which restrict it from selling ethanol to any buyer other than oil marketing companies.
Oil Marketing Companies Oppose Petition
Oil marketing companies, including BPCL, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), argued that the dispute arises from a contractual arrangement and should not be entertained through a writ petition. They also maintained that the allocation process followed established policy norms.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu ordered status quo on the Karnataka High Court’s direction while issuing notice on BPCL’s appeal challenging the ruling.
The High Court had earlier held that dedicated ethanol plants set up under government policy and bound by exclusive supply contracts should not be denied preferential consideration in allocation decisions under long-term agreements.
Concerns Over Policy Impact
The Attorney General argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court order could destabilise the national ethanol blending policy. He noted that supply contracts for the current ethanol supply year were finalised in October 2025 and allocations had already been communicated to 378 suppliers.
He also informed the court that out of the total 1,050 crore litres planned for procurement, 680 crore litres had already been supplied by June 18. According to him, increasing allocation for one supplier could trigger similar claims from others and potentially lead to a surge in litigation, affecting the stability of the policy framework.
The Supreme Court has now stepped in to maintain the existing position until the matter is further heard.
