Karnataka’s ethanol controversy has deepened after Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited rejected the state government’s claim that petrol sold at some retail outlets contained up to 31 per cent ethanol, saying the samples were not tested under prescribed procedures.
The Karnataka government had alleged that major oil marketing companies were supplying petrol with ethanol content above the prescribed 20 per cent limit. Tests cited by the state reportedly recorded ethanol levels between 26 per cent and 31.2 per cent in samples collected from retail outlets in Bengaluru, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Bengaluru Rural, Ramanagara, Mangaluru and Tumakuru.
Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology Minister Rizwan Arshad said the state’s allegations were based on the testing exercise conducted in October 2026 and sought action against the companies. The issue concerns the quality of E20 petrol, which is blended with up to 20 per cent ethanol under the applicable fuel specification.
In a joint statement issued on Friday, the three public-sector oil marketing companies said the reported claims were “not supported by testing conducted in accordance with the prescribed statutory and technical procedures”. They said E20 petrol supplied by them across India, including Karnataka, conformed to IS 17021, the Bureau of Indian Standards specification for ethanol-blended motor gasoline.
The companies said the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, read with the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2024, sets out the process for sampling, retention, testing and communication of results. Under the procedure described by the OMCs, six one-litre samples must be drawn. Two are handed to the dealer against acknowledgement, two are retained by the oil company or department, and two are sent to a laboratory specified under the Control Order or notified in the Official Gazette.
The sample labels must be jointly signed, and the results must be communicated to the dealer and the oil company within the prescribed time, the OMCs said. They added that samples collected during the September 2026 exercise were routed through the State Level Coordinator to designated OMC laboratories and tested for the quality parameters required under the 2024 guidelines.
The companies alleged that the October exercise followed a different process because samples were collected without the participation of OMC representatives. They said they had not received the corresponding retention samples, complete outlet-wise information or laboratory reports, despite seeking the material through the State Level Coordinator.
The OMCs also questioned the use of third-party laboratory certificates. According to their statement, the certificates did not contain complete technical details needed to independently verify the reported ethanol content. The companies said the absence of counterpart samples and prescribed documentation prevented both the dealers and the oil companies from seeking verification or retesting.
The dispute therefore centres not only on the reported ethanol percentages but also on whether the sampling chain and laboratory process can support enforcement action. The state has cited its October findings, while the OMCs have challenged the methodology and said their fuel conforms to the national BIS specification.
The supplied report does not include a final determination by a designated statutory laboratory, a publicly released outlet-wise report or an announced enforcement order against the companies. The next steps will depend on how the state authorities address the OMCs’ objections and whether the disputed samples are made available for verification or retesting under the prescribed framework.
