Tirupati Laddu Row | 'Lab Report Doesn't Prima Facie Show Impure Ghee Was Used': Supreme Court Slams AP CM For Public Comments

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 30) criticized the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.

The Court questioned the propriety of the Chief Minister -a high Constitutional functionary - making such statements when the matter was under investigation. The bench also orally observed that the lab report prima facie indicated that it was the rejected ghee samples which were subjected to the test.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the controversy relating to Tirupati laddus.

It asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Central Government on whether a Central Investigation is required and posted the matter to Thursday.

After an hour-long hearing, the bench observed in its order as follows :

"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.

Sr Adv 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.

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 inasmuch 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."

'We expect the Gods to be kept away from the politics': Court raises several questions at the State and TTD

The hearing witnessed the Court intensely question the State Government and the TTD.

"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?" Justice Viswanathan asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who was representing the State of Andhra Pradesh.

"This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus," the judge further observed, taking into consideration certain disclaimers mentioned in the report.

In similar vein, Justice Gavai posed to the State, "When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?"  The judge further remarked, "When you hold a constitutional office...we expect the Gods to be kept away from the politics".

Focusing on the lab report, Justice Viswanathan also posed, "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 response to Justice Gavai's pointed query as to whether the sample ghee, on which the lab report was based, was used in the preparation of the laddus, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (for the TTD) said, "We have ordered an investigation,"

"When somebody gives a report like you, does not prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? First of all, there is no proof that this ghee was used. And there is no second opinion," Justice Viswanathan remarked.

Supplementing, 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".

Addressing the Court's queries, Luthra claimed that there were complaints regarding the quality of laddus and possible contamination. As such, the samples drawn from the tankers which reached on July 6 and July 12 were sent to the NDDB, and later, found to be contaminated. He asserted that the same supplier had supplied from June till July 4.

At this point, Justice Viswanathan reiterated his observation that these lab tests are routine tests and they are done to justify the rejection of a ghee lot. There is nothing concrete to show that this ghee sample was actually used to make the religious offerings, the judge said, adding that it was not the stage for making public comments.

Subsequently, Justice Gavai asked Luthra about the statement of a TTD official that the contaminated ghee was never used and asked him to get specific instructions from the TTD.

Ultimately, the bench conveyed that it was of the view that the matter required investigation but the question was whether it should be done by the present Special Investigation Team constituted by the State.

Subramanian Swamy's petition

Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, for Dr.Subramanian Swamy, submitted that the statement by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu makes a factual assertion that the ghee used for making the laddus was contaminated. However, the CM's statements were controverted by the Chief Executive Officer of the TTD who said that such ghee was never used, Rao said. When such statements are made by persons holding responsible posts without adequate material, they have far-reaching ramifications and can vitiate harmony, he added.

"Ideally one would have expected, especially those who are occupying high positions, to be more responsible and verify the facts before making categorical assertions. The CM made a statement which is controverted by the TTD official. So the matter needs some supervision," Rao said. "If there is a question mark on the deity's prasadam, then it has to be examined. Now with that statement made (by the CM), can they have a free and fair enquiry?" Rao said.

"The fact that you say that the prasadam is tainted without any material to back it up is a serious issue," Rao added, emphasizing that political intervention should not be allowed in this issue. He referred to some queries which Swamy raised in the petition, such as :

- Was the sampling done/procured by the lab-testing agency?

- Was the sample of ghee taken from the ghee which was used in the offerings or from the rejected lot of samples?

- Which supplier was concerned with procurement of the said adulterated ghee?

- Whether the said report has scope for a false positive result?

- When was or whether the said ghee procured or rejected after internal testing of the TTD?

- Whether any political intervention should be permissible in releasing such reports and not be the TTD?

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for State of AP) argued that Swamy's petition was not bona fide and was filed to espouse the cause of the previous government led by YSRCP. He also said that the petition filed by Swamy and the ex-TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy were identical.

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur made submissions for Suresh Chavhanke, who has filed a petition seeking independent investigation.

To state briefly, the controversy arises out of a lab report made public by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, as per which, samples of ghee supplied to Tirupati temple for preparation of laddus during the term of the previous YSRCP government were found to contain foreign fats (including beef fat and fish oil).

While former Andhra CM Jagan Mohan Reddy has labelled the claims "diversion politics", Naidu-led Andhra Pradesh government has since constituted a Special Investigation Team to probe the matter.

About five petitions seem to have been filed so far seeking reliefs including Court-monitored probe into the allegations and more accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies. For details of the same, click here.

Three out of the said five petitions were listed today before Justices Gavai and Viswanathan. These were filed by - (i) Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, (ii) Rajya Sabha MP and ex-TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, (iii) Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath and spiritual discourser Dushyanth Sridhar.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order