Introduction:
On September 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of India criticized Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu for his public statements concerning the alleged use of adulterated ghee in the prasadam laddus at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. The court questioned the appropriateness of such allegations while an investigation was still underway. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, noted that the lab report, which indicated the presence of rejected ghee samples, had not conclusively linked them to the preparation of the laddus, highlighting concerns over the political nature of the issue.
The allegations have drawn significant attention due to the religious importance of the Tirupati temple, which serves millions of devotees. The Supreme Court now faces the decision of whether to let the Andhra Pradesh government’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) continue its probe or hand the investigation over to an independent central agency. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has been asked to seek the Central Government’s input, with the next hearing set for Thursday.
Arguments Presented:
Andhra Pradesh Government’s Counsel (Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi):
Representing the state, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi defended CM Naidu’s statements, asserting that the comments were based on lab reports indicating contamination in the ghee used in the temple’s prasadam. He argued that the Chief Minister’s concerns over the prasadam’s quality were legitimate, warranting an investigation. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was set up before the filing of a formal FIR on September 25. Rohatgi suggested that the petition by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy was politically motivated.
He acknowledged that the lab tests conducted on ghee samples from July 6 and 12 had found contamination but argued that the Chief Minister’s transparency was vital given the public’s outrage over the issue.
Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam’s Counsel (Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra):
Representing the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra refuted the Chief Minister’s claims, maintaining that no adulterated ghee was used in preparing the laddus. He pointed out that although contaminated ghee had been detected in tanker shipments, it had been rejected and not used in prasadam preparation.
Luthra stressed that the TTD adhered to strict quality controls and that the Chief Minister’s premature public remarks caused unnecessary alarm, damaging the temple’s reputation. He argued that Naidu should have awaited the SIT’s investigation results before making any statements.
Petitioners’ Counsel (Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao for Subramanian Swamy):
Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, criticized the Chief Minister for making unsubstantiated public remarks that contradicted the TTD’s assertions. Rao argued that Naidu’s statements were politically motivated and reckless, emphasizing that such allegations about religious matters should be backed by evidence.
Rao questioned the reliability of the lab reports and advocated for a court-monitored investigation by an independent central agency to ensure transparency, arguing that political figures should not exploit religious controversies for political gain.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of CM Naidu’s public remarks, questioning the propriety of his actions given that the investigation was ongoing. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the lab reports indicated contamination in a rejected batch of ghee, which had not been used in the laddus, and questioned the Chief Minister’s rush to make public allegations without waiting for a full investigation.
Justice Gavai further emphasized that political leaders should refrain from bringing religious matters into the political arena, remarking that “Gods should be kept away from politics.” The bench stressed the importance of maintaining caution and prudence in dealing with sensitive religious matters.
The Court directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to consult the Central Government on whether an independent central agency should take over the investigation. The bench also sought further clarification from the TTD on the ghee samples and their use in prasadam preparation.
The next hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, where the Court will consider whether to transfer the investigation to a central agency, weighing the political and religious implications of the case.