Arvind Kejriwal said AAP will continue its campaign against E20 fuel and urged people to join protests.
AAP leaders opposed E20 implementation in Goa and Gujarat, where the party has MLAs.
Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh alleged the ethanol policy benefits foreign interests over Indian farmers.
AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday said his party would continue its campaign against E20 fuel and urged people to join the protest in large numbers if they wanted to stop its implementation.
The AAP leader made the remarks after leading a march towards the Prime Minister’s residence with petitions opposing E20 fuel, as the party stepped up its campaign against the policy. According to PTI, Kejriwal and other party leaders were stopped by the Delhi Police from moving towards the Prime Minister’s residence, following which they staged a protest on Firoz Shah Road while seeking to submit more than 2.30 lakh petitions against the fuel policy.
Kejriwal said the party would oppose any move to implement E20 fuel in states where it has legislators. “We have MLAs in Goa and Gujarat and we will not allow E20 to be passed there either. Our legislators will oppose it in the assemblies,” he said.
He said around 100 people had joined Tuesday’s march but added that they had shown courage by participating despite criticism and trolling on social media. “If people want to get rid of E20, they will have to come out on the streets in large numbers,” Kejriwal said.
According to PTI, Kejriwal also urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to “withstand the pressure” of US President Donald Trump and stop importing ethanol from the United States, alleging that the policy favoured foreign interests over Indian farmers.
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said he had raised the issue in Parliament and claimed that the Centre’s response showed it was determined to implement E20. “I raised the question in Parliament today and the answer makes it clear that the government is determined to implement E20,” Singh claimed.
Singh also alleged that Indian farmers would not benefit from ethanol production and claimed that the policy would instead benefit farmers in the United States.
(With inputs from PTI)
