Karnataka says 31.2%, the oil companies say 19% to 21%. A joint test with published results settles it

Petrol is the one product almost every household buys without being able to inspect. That is why the argument between Karnataka and three state-run oil companies matters beyond politics. A motorist at a pump cannot tell whether the fuel is 20% ethanol or 30%, and cannot tell which government to believe.

Two sets of numbers

On November 6, Karnataka’s Food and Civil Supplies Minister Rizwan Arshad released results from 63 petrol samples collected in seven districts and tested at the Shriram Research Institute in Bengaluru. Ethanol ran from 13.5% to 31.2%, against the 20% blend approved under the E20 programme. The state puts the cost to consumers in lost mileage and repairs at about ₹1.01 lakh crore a year.

On November 7, Indian Oil, HPCL and BPCL replied jointly. They said their E20 petrol follows the Bureau of Indian Standards norm IS 17021 and that 893 samples from 27 states and Union Territories, monitored by the Centre for High Technology, fell between 19% and 21%. Fifty-six of those came from Karnataka and averaged 19.30%.

Both cannot describe the same fuel. Either the samples differ, or the tests do.

What each side has not shown

The companies say they were not present when the samples were drawn, that the laboratory is not one named in the fuel control order, and that the certificates do not state the test method. They argue that the densities reported, 0.742 to 0.749 g/cc, do not fit ethanol levels as high as 31%. These are fair questions, and Karnataka should answer them with its sampling records, pump locations and method.

The state has its own complaint. It says the companies’ lab reports do not disclose ethanol content. The companies say they have asked for retained samples and outlet-wise details and received none. The Petroleum Ministry, which could referee, had issued no statement on Karnataka’s findings by Saturday afternoon. In October the Petroleum Minister had called concerns about E20 a “contrived narrative”; that is a position, not a test result.

Neither side has published enough for an outsider to check the other. The result is a contest of press releases, with Rahul Gandhi adding a slogan and a different sample count, 11 of 14, that does not match Karnataka’s own 63.

The best case for the companies

There is a serious argument that a single state’s one-time test should not overturn a national monitoring programme. Ethanol content can vary with how a sample is handled and which method is used. Eight hundred and ninety-three readings in a narrow band are a far larger body of evidence than 63. If the state’s method is flawed, the public should be told so plainly, and the scare should end.

That argument is itself a reason for an open test. A programme confident in its numbers loses nothing by showing them.

What should happen now

First, the Centre should order joint sampling: Karnataka officials, the oil companies and an independent observer drawing samples together at the same pumps, with counterpart samples sealed for each party, as the companies themselves have asked.

Second, a laboratory accepted by both sides, with a stated test method, should analyse them, and its reports should be published pump by pump.

Third, if any pump is found above 20%, the supplier and the depot should be named and the fault traced, and affected vehicle owners should have a route to compensation. If none is, Karnataka should say so and withdraw the estimate.

Fourth, the blend should be labelled at every pump, as Karnataka has asked. A customer paying for fuel is entitled to know what is in it.

A fuel programme that asks a billion people to trust the pump should be the first to open its tests to scrutiny.

The reporting behind this view

• 63petrol samples tested by Karnataka, with ethanol from 13.5% to 31.2% (results released November 6, 2026)
• 893E20 samples from 27 states and UTs that the oil companies say fell between 19% and 21%
• ₹1.01 lakh croreyearly cost to consumers estimated by Karnataka, a figure the companies call speculative