The Supreme Court has questioned how the government will ensure adequate fuel supplies for vehicles capable of running on nearly pure ethanol, exposing an immediate implementation challenge for India’s E100 vehicle policy.
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 question came days after the road transport ministry amended the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to recognise flex-fuel vehicles capable of operating on E100.
“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 recent media reports about the approval of vehicles designed to run on 100 per cent ethanol.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the court that ensuring such supplies would require “large scale manufacturing re-arrangements”. His response pointed to the gap between permitting a vehicle technology and creating the production, distribution and retail systems needed to support it.
The road transport ministry notified amendments on October 26 to update emission certification provisions and 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 can operate on higher ethanol concentrations, including E85 and E100.
The hearing also brought the government’s current blending position into focus. A day after the rules were amended, petroleum and natural gas minister Hardeep Singh Puri said the Centre had no immediate plans to raise ethanol blending in petrol beyond the existing 20 per cent.
That distinction matters for the transition to E100 vehicles. A vehicle authorised to use nearly pure ethanol would require access to a fuel supply that is different from petrol containing a 20 per cent ethanol blend. The court’s question therefore concerned not only vehicle certification, but also whether production and supply arrangements can keep pace with the regulatory change.
The bench further stressed that farmers’ interests and the environmental implications of ethanol production would need to be considered. “We need to empower the common man who is still in the villages,” the bench observed. The Attorney General assured the court that he would address concerns relating to farmers during his arguments.
During the hearing, one advocate submitted that promoting ethanol would benefit farmers, while another said the Centre’s ethanol policy already took their interests into account. The competing submissions placed the distribution of benefits and the wider effects of ethanol production at the centre of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing next month. The government’s response is expected to address how supplies for E100 vehicles would be organised, alongside the concerns raised about farmers and the environmental consequences of ethanol production.
