The Indian government issued a sharp clarification on Tuesday night following claims that its E20 blending programme was an “experiment”. The assertion came hours after the Supreme Court of India pressed pause on a Karnataka High Court ruling to enhance ethanol allocation. The apex court had been hearing a case filed by Bharat Petroleum that claimed the Karnataka HC order would destabilise the national policy of 20% ethanol blending for petrol.

“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,” reiterated a statement from the Law Ministry. 

Centre denies calling E20 programme an ‘experiment’ before SC

The clarification came after reports claimed Attorney General R Venkataraman had told the Supreme Court that the E20 blended petrol program was “still an ongoing experiment”. It also misquoted him as claiming that “the impact of the policy would become clearer by next year.” 

ALSO READ

“These reports are completely false and do not reflect anything even close to the actual submissions made before the Court…Members of the media are requested to report judicial proceedings with due accuracy, particularly in matters involving important national policy initiatives,” a government release rebuked.

Multiple news platforms had earlier quoted the top law official as submitting that the 20% ethanol blending programme in petrol is still an ongoing experiment. News agency PTI also reported initially that  AG Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that the impact of the E20 policy would become clearer by next year.

What is the case?

The case had reached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka HC passed an order directing OMCs to consider enhancement of ethanol allocation to VINP Distilleries and Sugars. The company runs a dedicated ethanol plant that manufactures and supplies denatured anhydrous ethanol exclusively to the oil marketing companies under a long-term arrangement.

VINP Distilleries had approached the court in response to a tender floated by the OMCs in September 2025 to procure 1,050 crore litres of ethanol for the 2025-26 supply year. The company bid to supply 9.3 crore litres but was allotted only 3.9 crore litres — creating a shortfall of 6.3 crore litres. 

It argued that the reduction was arbitrary and highlighted its extensive investments to build a dedicated ethanol plant based on long-term supply agreements and past conduct. As a dedicated plant, the company would be contractually barred from selling to anyone beyond the OMCs. It would also face difficulties in pivoting their machinery to manufacture other types of alcohol or commercial products.

Meanwhile the OMCs had noted that the dispute arose out of a contract and argued a writ petition was not maintainable.

SC orders status quo on Karnataka HC ruling

The Supreme Court has ordered  status quo on a Karnataka High Court direction to enhance ethanol allocation for Ethanol Supply Year 2025-26. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu issued notice on a plea filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd challenging the high court order.

The high court had directed the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited to consider and decide a representation submitted by a dedicated ethanol manufacturer seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for ESY 2025-26. Karnataka HC held that dedicated ethanol plants — established pursuant to government policy and contractually bound to supply ethanol exclusively to Oil Marketing Companies — cannot be denied the benefit of preferential allocation contemplated under the Long-Term Offtake Agreement.

Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that the HC order would destabilise the national policy. He also noted that the ethanol supply contracts were concluded in October 2025 and allocations communicated to 378 suppliers. Venkataramani informed the Supreme Court that 680 crore litres of ethanol (out of the total supply of 1,050 crore litres) had already been supplied by them by June 18. The Attorney General contended that enhancing the quota of one supplier would prompt other similarly placed suppliers to claim parity and would open litigation floodgates.