Diversion of foodgrain surplus for biofuel production raises questions of distributive justice and food security. Comment with reference to the EBP programme.

The Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme achieved 20% blending (E20) in ESY 2025-26, five years ahead of the 2030 target [1]. But as FCI rice moved from a marginal to a major feedstock, the charge that grain meant for the poor now fuels cars deserves serious, though ultimately qualified, agreement.

The equity concern is real

• Scale of diversion: the Centre allocated 52 lakh metric tonnes of surplus FCI rice for ethanol across ESY 2024-25 and 2025-26 [2]; rice's share of feedstock rose from 0.02% (ESY 2023-24) to 24.64% (ESY 2025-26) [3].
• Pricing asymmetry: FCI rice is supplied at about ₹60.32/litre, below maize (₹71.86) and sugarcane (₹65.61) [3] — a publicly procured asset transferred cheapest to private distillers.
• Beneficiary mismatch: gains flow to distilleries, surplus-producing regions and vehicle owners, while the buffer stock exists for NFSA entitlement-holders — a classic distributive-justice objection.

Why it is not yet a food-security breach

• Grain is released only after the Department of Food & Public Distribution certifies that NFSA, welfare-scheme and buffer-norm needs are met [3]; only post-food-security surplus is diverted.
• Farmer welfare: cumulative payments of ₹1.66 lakh crore to farmers and distillers created assured demand for maize and sugarcane [1][3].
• Consumer justice: blending cushioned pump prices — petrol at ₹94.77/litre against a projected ₹125 during the crude surge to US$135/barrel [3].
• National gains: 316 lakh MT crude substituted, ₹1.97 lakh crore forex saved and about 950 lakh MT CO₂ avoided [1][3].

On balance, EBP today is managed surplus disposal rather than food diverted from the hungry — but that verdict is conditional, not permanent. Sustaining it requires a statutory buffer-first rule, transparent open-market pricing of FCI grain, and a decisive shift to 2G ethanol from agricultural residue so that fuel demand rests on waste rather than food. Energy security and the right to food, read together, are complementary constitutional goals — the programme must keep them so.