Tirupati Balaji Adulterated Ghee Controversy: SC Criticizes Andhra Pradesh CM For Making Public Allegations When The Matter Was Under Investigation

While hearing a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the Tirupati Balaji Adulterated Ghee controversy on September 30, 2024 (Yesterday), the Supreme Court (SC) of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan criticized Chief Minister (CM) of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations regarding the use of adulterated ghee to prepare laddu prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. The bench questioned the proprietary of the CM making such allegations public when the matter was under investigation. Justice Viswanathan asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, “There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press?" Considering certain disclaimers mentioned in the report, the judge further observed, “This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus.” Adding to this, Justice Gavai asked the State “When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?... When you hold a constitutional office...we expect the Gods to be kept away from the politics.” 

Justice Viswanathan also said, “You get the report in July. 18th September you go public...SIT is constituted on 26th September...Unless you were sure, how did you go public?" In context to this, Justice Gavai asked whether the sample ghee sent for the test in the lab was used to prepare the laddus. “We have ordered an investigation,” said Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra who appeared for the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD). Further, Justice Gavai said, “When you have ordered the investigation, what was the need for going public? This is a matter of the sentiments of the lakhs of devotees.” After hearing the matter, the SC bench observed, “The petition pertains to sentiments affecting crores of people living in the entire world. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement that the animal fat was being used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous regime. However, some press reports also show that the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam had also made a statement that such an 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 and specifically the manufacture of prasadam.”

It added, “Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the TTD, submitted the ghee which was supplied in June and till 4th July by the same supplier were not sent to analysis to the NDDB. However, it is only the ghee received in tankers supplied on 6 July and 12 July which were sent to NDDB. It is submitted that 4 samples were taken from 2 tankers supplied on 6 July and 2 tankers on 12 July. It is submitted in all 4 samples, ghee was found to be adulterated. It is submitted that the statement made by the Chief Executive Officer is only with regard to the tankers which were supplied on 6 July and 12 July. It is submitted that the ghee in the tankers supplied in June till 4 July was used in the production of the laddus.” The bench further said, “Admittedly, even according to the State Government, an investigation was necessary and SIT came to be formed to investigate the FIR dated 25th September. It could be therefore said that the statement made by the Chief Minister was prior to the FIR and the constitution of the SIT in as much as the Chief Minister had gone public on 18th September. 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. In that view of the matter, we find that it would be appropriate if the learned SG assists us on whether the SIT by the State should continue or the investigation should be by an independent agency." The bench posted the matter to Thursday (October 03, 2024).