Aam Aadmi Party National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal has escalated the political fight over E20 petrol, writing to 29 automobile manufacturers and asking them to state in writing whether older vehicles can safely run on fuel blended with 20 per cent ethanol.
Kejriwal’s intervention on Wednesday sharpened a widening dispute over the nationwide shift to E20, which has replaced lower-blend petrol at pumps and left vehicle owners questioning mileage, warranty protection, engine durability and consumer choice. He has sought responses within seven days, arguing that motorists cannot be expected to rely on broad assurances when several owner manuals for older models refer only to E5 or E10 compatibility.
The former Delhi chief minister said the issue was “not a minor mistake” and accused stakeholders of issuing contradictory claims on whether E20 could affect fuel efficiency or damage engines. His move follows complaints from car and two-wheeler owners who say they have seen mileage drops after the transition, though the government and auto industry figures have maintained that fears of widespread damage are exaggerated.
E20 petrol contains 20 per cent ethanol and 80 per cent petrol. The blend is part of the government’s ethanol-blending programme, promoted as a way to cut crude oil imports, support sugarcane and maize growers, reduce emissions and improve energy security. The original target for achieving 20 per cent blending was advanced, and E20 became the standard petrol sold across the country ahead of the earlier 2030 timeline.
The policy has, however, become a consumer-rights controversy because E20-compliant vehicles began entering the market in large numbers only from 2023, while a large share of vehicles on the road were built before manufacturers moved fully to E20-ready materials and engine calibration. Industry schedules had envisaged vehicles becoming material-compliant from 2023 and fully E20-compliant from 2025.
Kejriwal’s letters place automakers at the centre of the dispute. His questions seek clarity on whether pre-2023 models can use E20 without higher maintenance costs, reduced engine life, lower mileage or warranty complications. The demand is politically significant because carmakers have generally backed the fuel transition, while some consumers say the absence of an E10 or unblended petrol option has shifted the risk to owners.
Government agencies have rejected claims that E20 causes major harm, arguing that mileage is influenced by driving habits, maintenance, tyre pressure, air-conditioning load and other factors. Official responses have stated that some older vehicles may require replacement of rubber parts or gaskets earlier than they would have under non-blended petrol, but that such work can be handled during routine servicing.
Testing cited in policy documents found that E20 caused no severe malfunction or stalling during vehicle-level trials, though fuel economy fell by up to 6 per cent depending on vehicle type. Material tests found no major issue with metals and coatings, while some elastomers and plastics showed weaker performance compared with neat petrol. The findings have become central to the debate because they support both sides: the government’s claim that E20 is broadly usable, and the consumer argument that older vehicles may face measurable effects.
Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari has strongly defended the programme and challenged critics to identify a vehicle proven to have been damaged by E20. He has framed the opposition as a campaign against a fuel shift that reduces import dependence and benefits farmers. The petroleum ministry has also said the use of E20 does not invalidate vehicle insurance.
The dispute intensified after reports said the government had described the E20 programme as an “experiment” before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General’s office later denied that such a submission had been made, saying the reports did not reflect the government’s position. A fresh public-interest case has also been filed, adding a legal track to the public argument over choice, transparency and compatibility.
