Also Read - Thane Court Grants Bail to Corporator Ramesh Mhatre

The Conflict of Interest Shadow

Beyond the mechanics, the specter of conflict of interest looms large. When the public questions the exponential growth of certain sugar and ethanol-linked corporate interests, the rebuttal is a classic diversion: a pivot to the overall economic "debt" of those companies or a finger-point toward global practices.

The strategy is clear: label any dissent as "politically motivated" or "misinformation." By daring citizens to "prove" damage—a near-impossible task for the average owner against a corporate service center the government creates a barrier to entry for any genuine grievance.

Also Read - Brinda Karat Seeks Review of Supreme Court’s Clean Chit to Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma in Hate Speech Matter

Why the Silence on Transparency?

The refusal to fully release the technical reports on long-term E20 impacts under the guise of "commercial confidentiality" is the final piece of the puzzle. If the policy is truly in the best interest of the public, why hide the full data sets? Why not provide consumers with the choice to opt-out or access non-blended fuel without the punitive pricing?

As the policy marches forward, the burden of this "transition" falls squarely on the individual. The message is simple: you are expected to bear the cost of lower mileage and the risk of engine wear for a national goal that remains shrouded in corporate interests and technical ambiguity. It is time to look past the slogans and ask who this "green" revolution is actually serving.

Also Read - Madras High Court Clarifies That Repeated Physical Intimacy Does Not Amount to Consent; Courts Must Probe Coercion and Deception