The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking mandatory disclosure of ethanol content in petrol sold at fuel stations across the country, after the Centre opposed the plea and urged the court not to entertain it.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale said that the petitioner could approach the competent authority with his grievance instead of directly moving the top court. “Dismissed…It will remain open for petitioner to approach the competent authority,” said the bench in its brief order.
The petition, filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, sought directions to the central government to ensure mandatory and uniform labelling on every dispensing nozzle at petrol pumps, clearly disclosing the exact percentage of ethanol blended in petrol. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, opposed the petition, pointing out that the Supreme Court had already dismissed challenges to the government’s ethanol-blending policy. “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. Ethanol is a biofuel produced from feedstocks such as sugarcane, rice and maize, and the government has promoted higher ethanol blending as part of its efforts to reduce crude oil imports, strengthen energy security and cut greenhouse gas emissions. During that hearing too, the Centre had defended the policy. He had asserted that the government had formulated the policy after taking all relevant aspects into consideration and that the programme was benefiting sugarcane farmers.
The plea comes against the backdrop of the Centre’s nationwide E20 blending programme, under which petrol containing up to 20% ethanol is being supplied at fuel stations. Goswami clarified that he was not questioning the government’s E20 policy but was only seeking disclosure of the ethanol content so that consumers could make an informed choice.
“Your lordships have already dismissed pleas challenging the policy,” said the AG, referring to the court’s earlier orders rejecting challenges to compulsory ethanol blending. Last time AG said it is an experiment. After that they gave clarification,” he said. The Attorney General had described the petitioner as a “name-lender” and alleged that a larger lobby was behind the challenge.
