The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations over the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan asked Naidu what was the need to go to the press when he had already ordered an investigation into the matter.
The Supreme Court on Monday, while hearing a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe in the allegations of adulterated ghee being used for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple, said that it expected Gods to be kept away from politicians.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that when someone held a constitutional office, it was expected that Gods would be kept away from controversies, referring to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu.
The Apex Court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Union government on whether an SIT constituted by the State should continue or the investigation should be conducted by an independent agency.
Noting that it would be appropriate if the SG assisted the Court, the Bench listed the matter for further hearing on October 3.
The top court of the country recorded in its order that the petition pertained to sentiments affecting crores of people living in the entire world. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement that animal fat was being used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous regime.
However, some press reports showed that the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam also made a statement that such adulterated ghee was never used. The petitions have been filed seeking various prayers, including an independent enquiry and directions for regulating the affairs of the religious trusts, specifically the manufacture of prasadam, noted the Bench.
It recorded the submissions made by Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra, appearing for the TTD. The Senior Counsel submitted that the ghee supplied in June and till July 4, 2024 was by the same supplier, and it was not sent for analysis. However, the ghee received on two tankers each on July 6 and 12, 2024, was sent to NDDB.
In all four samples, the ghee was found to be adulterated. The ghee in the samples supplied in June and till July 4, 2024 was used in the production of laddus, he added.
The Bench further recorded the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the State Government, that an investigation was necessary and an SIT had been formed to investigate the FIR on September 25.
The top court of the country noted that the State received the report in July, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Naidu went public, making allegations regarding the use of contaminated ghee in the preparation of Prasad at TTD. Unless he was sure, how could he go to public? asked the Bench, observing that the statement made by the Chief Minister was prior to the registration of an FIR and the constitution of the SIT.
It was not appropriate for the high constitutional authority to make a statement that could affect the sentiments of crores of people, when the investigation was under process, noted the Bench.
It further said that there were some disclaimers in the lab report. It was not clear, and prima facie indicated that it was the rejected ghee, which was subjected to test.
The top court of the country asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh Naidu government, regarding the need to go to the press when it had already ordered an investigation into the matter.
The bench orally observed that the lab report prima facie indicated that this was not the material used in the preparation of the laddus.
When asked whether the ghee sent for test was used in the preparation of the laddus, Senior Advocate Siddhath Luthra said the TTD administration has ordered an investigation into the matter.
The Bench observed that when a report like this was submitted to the TTD, it should have sought a second opinion. First of all, there was no proof that this ghee was used in preparation of laddus as prasadam. Second, there was no second opinion.
The Senior Counsel said there were complaints regarding the quality of laddus and possible contamination. The lab report of the NDDB showed contamination and the nature of contamination was under enquiry, he added.
The Bench observed that these were routine lab tests conducted to justify the rejection of a ghee lot. There was nothing concrete to show that this ghee sample was actually used to make the religious offerings, it noted, adding that this was not a stage for making public comments.
The Apex Court further asked Luthra about the statement of the TTD official that the contaminated ghee was never used and asked him to get specific instructions from the TTD.
Appearing for Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao submitted that the statement made by the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister made a factual assertion that the ghee used for making the laddus was contaminated.
However, Naidu’s statements were controverted by the Executive Officer of the TTD who said that such ghee was never used. When such statements were made by persons holding responsible posts without adequate material, they had far-reaching ramifications and could vitiate harmony, he added.
The Senior Counsel contended that one would ideally expect that those occupying high positions would be more responsible and verify the facts before making categorical assertions.
The CM made a statement which was controverted by the TTD official. The matter would need some supervision. If there was a question mark on the deity’s prasadam, then it has to be examined. Now with that statement made (by the CM), could they have a free and fair enquiry, Rao added.
The Senior Counsel said the allegation of calling the prasadam as tainted without any material to back it up was a serious issue, adding that political intervention should not be allowed on this.
Senior Advocate Rohatgi contended that Swamy’s petition was not bona fide and filed to espouse the cause of the previous government led by YSRCP. The petitions filed by Swamy and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy were identical, he added.
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur made submissions for Suresh Chavhnake, who sought an independent investigation into the matter.
The matter pertained to a lab report made public by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, as per which, samples of ghee supplied to the Tirupati Tirumala temple for preparation of laddus during the term of the previous YSRCP government were found to contain animal fat.
While former Andhra CM Jagan Mohan Reddy labelled the claims as ‘diversion politics,’ the Naidu-led state government has since constituted a Special Investigation Team to probe the matter.
About five petitions have been filed so far in the matter, seeking a Court-monitored probe into the allegations and more accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies.
Three out of these five petitions were listed today before the Bench of Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan.
These were filed by senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, and spiritual discourser Dushyanth Sridhar.