The Supreme Court has questioned how the government will ensure adequate fuel supplies for vehicles capable of running on nearly 100 per cent ethanol after the Centre amended motor vehicle rules to recognise E100 vehicles.
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale raised the issue while hearing petitions concerning ethanol allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year 2025-26. The court’s question came days after the road transport ministry updated the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to include flex-fuel vehicles capable of operating on E100, or nearly pure ethanol.
“Academically, we want to know if the permission is given to have 100 percent ethanol run vehicles, how will you make the supply,” the bench asked, referring to media reports about the regulatory change.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the court that supplying fuel at that scale would require “large scale manufacturing re-arrangements”. The exchange brought the implementation question into focus: recognising vehicles that can use high-ethanol fuel does not by itself establish the production, distribution and retail network needed to supply it.
The road transport ministry notified the amendments on October 26, updating emission certification provisions to include E100 alongside E85. E85 contains 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol. Flex-fuel vehicles differ from conventional petrol vehicles because they are designed to operate with higher ethanol concentrations, including E85 and E100.
The court’s concern also comes as the government maintains a limit on petrol blending. A day after the motor vehicle rules were amended, petroleum and natural gas minister Hardeep Singh Puri said the Centre had no immediate plans to increase ethanol blending in petrol beyond the existing 20 per cent.
That distinction leaves two separate policy tracks: blending ethanol into petrol supplied through the existing fuel system, and creating sufficient supplies for vehicles designed to run on much higher ethanol concentrations. The hearing indicated that the court wanted the government to explain how the second track could be supported by manufacturing and supply arrangements.
The bench also stressed that the ethanol policy must be examined through its effects on farmers and the environment. “We need to empower the common man who is still in the villages,” it observed, underlining the wider public-interest dimension of the dispute.
During the hearing, one advocate submitted that promoting ethanol would benefit farmers, while another said the Centre’s ethanol policy already took farmers’ interests into account. The Attorney General assured the court that he would address concerns relating to farmers during his arguments.
The proceedings place fuel availability, vehicle certification, agricultural interests and environmental consequences within the same policy question. For motorists and manufacturers, the practical issue is whether regulatory permission for E100 vehicles will be matched by a dependable supply system. For the government, the court is seeking clarity on how the proposed transition would be supported at scale.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing next month.
