Tirupati Laddu Controversy: SC Questions Andhra CM’s Allegations on Ghee Adulteration

The Supreme Court of India has recently taken a firm stance in a case that has drawn nationwide attention, involving allegations of adulterated ghee used in the preparation of the famous Tirupati laddus, offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. The controversy began when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidumade a public statement accusing the previous government of allowing the use of animal fat in the laddus. His comments, made while the matter was still under investigation, have sparked widespread debate over the intersection of religious practices, political influence, and public sentiment.

The Chief Minister’s statement was particularly contentious as it concerned the sacred prasadam of one of India’s most revered Hindu temples, affecting the sentiments of millions of devotees worldwide. The allegations have since led to multiple petitions before the Supreme Court, with parties seeking an independent investigation into the matter. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has already been formed by the state to look into the claims of ghee adulteration, but the Supreme Court is now questioning whether a Central Investigation should be initiated, given the sensitivity of the issue.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, expressed concerns about the propriety of a high constitutional functionary making such public comments while the investigation was ongoing. The Court underscored the importance of ensuring that religion and politics are kept separate, particularly when the sentiments of crores of devotees are at stake. The case has now escalated into a legal battle over the freedom of speech, public accountability, and political responsibility in matters of religious significance.

The Court has also raised questions about the lab report relied upon by the Chief Minister, indicating that the tested samples may have been from rejected ghee and not the material used for making the laddus. As the investigation unfolds, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether the SIT constituted by the state should continue or whether an independent investigation is required to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry into the matter.

CM’s Public Statement Criticized

• During a hearing on September 30, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan questioned the Chief Minister for making public allegations that animal fat had been used in the preparation of the laddus during the previous government’s tenure.
• The Court observed, “We are prima facie of the view that when the investigation was under process, it was not appropriate for the high constitutional authority to make a statement which can affect the sentiments of crores of people.”

Investigation and Lab Report

• The matter revolves around a lab report that purportedly found the ghee used in the laddus to be adulterated. However, the Court noted that this report was based on rejected ghee samples, raising questions about its relevance.
• Justice Viswanathan observed, “This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus.”
• Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD), confirmed that the investigation was still ongoing, and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by the State was handling the probe.

State Government and TTD’s Position

• The Court questioned the State Government and TTD on the timing of the CM’s statement, noting that it was made before the formation of the SIT. Justice Gavai remarked, “When you have ordered an investigation, what was the need for going public?”
• The Court further pressed Luthra on the TTD’s statement denying the use of the adulterated ghee, asking for specific instructions on whether the contaminated ghee had been used in making the laddus.

Court’s Concerns About Public Sentiments

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of not mixing politics with religious sentiments, stating, “When you hold a constitutional office, we expect the Gods to be kept away from politics.”
• The Court noted that such public statements could affect the sentiments of millions of devotees and create unnecessary controversy without sufficient evidence.

Subramanian Swamy’s Petition

• Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing Dr. Subramanian Swamy, argued that the CM’s statement about ghee adulteration lacked factual backing and could vitiate harmony. Rao added, “The fact that you say that the prasadam is tainted without any material to back it up is a serious issue.”
• Rao raised critical questions about the process of ghee sampling and whether the samples used in the lab report were the same as those used in making the prasadam.

Future of the Investigation

• The Court acknowledged that an investigation was necessary but questioned whether the SIT should continue or whether the investigation should be handed over to an independent agency.
• The Court has directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Central Government on whether a Central Investigation should be initiated and adjourned the matter to Thursday.

Case Title : Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, W.P.(C) No. 622/2024