The Supreme Court of India expressed serious concerns over Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s public statements, where he alleged that adulterated ghee containing animal fat had been used in preparing the sacred laddus at the Sri Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati. The top court questioned Naidu's decision to go public with these allegations before a formal investigation had even begun, suggesting that such statements could harm the religious sentiments of millions of devotees. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan underscored the responsibility of individuals holding constitutional positions, stating, "At least, the Gods should be kept away from politics."
The court expressed disappointment that Naidu chose to speak about the issue on September 18, even though an FIR had not yet been registered (which was filed on September 25), and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had only been constituted on September 26 to look into the alleged adulteration. The court emphasized that it was inappropriate for a high constitutional functionary like the Chief Minister to make public allegations before conclusive proof or even the beginning of a formal inquiry. Justice Gavai questioned the rationale behind going to the media, asking, "Whether such a statement should have been made that affects the sentiments of the devotees?" He added that making such a public statement could have a significant impact on religious beliefs and sentiments, particularly when there was no definitive evidence at that point.
During the hearing, Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, argued that the petitions challenging Naidu’s allegations were politically motivated and had been filed by individuals close to the previous YSR Congress regime. He suggested that these petitions were attempts to discredit Naidu and the current government. Rohatgi further explained that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), which manages the temple, had already issued show-cause notices to suppliers involved in the preparation of the laddus. He suggested that the entire controversy was being blown out of proportion by political opponents for their own benefit.
However, the court continued to press on the issue of why Naidu had gone public with the allegations when an investigation had already been ordered. Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tirupati Temple, confirmed to the court that the temple authorities were investigating the matter, but no conclusive evidence had yet been found to support the claims of adulteration in the laddus. Justice Gavai, expressing concern, asked, "Then what was the need to go to the press immediately? You need to respect religious sentiments." Justice Viswanathan also questioned the prudence of Naidu’s actions, asking if it wouldn't have been better to wait for a second opinion or lab testing before making such serious claims.
The court also focused on the lack of concrete proof supporting the allegations of contaminated ghee. When it was mentioned that some devotees had complained about the laddus tasting different, the court questioned whether the laddus had been sent to a laboratory for testing to confirm whether the ghee was adulterated. Justice Viswanathan remarked, "Doesn't prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? In normal situations, we seek a second opinion. There's no proof that the said ghee was used," further underscoring the lack of evidence to back up Naidu's public remarks.
In light of these concerns, the Supreme Court directed Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the central government on whether a central agency investigation into the matter would be necessary, indicating that a higher-level probe might be considered if deemed appropriate. The court adjourned the case for further hearing on Thursday, providing time for the Solicitor General to gather more information.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing three separate petitions related to this case, filed by prominent individuals, including senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD chairman YV Subba Reddy, and historian Vikram Sampath along with spiritual discourse speaker Dushyanth Sridhar. These petitions raise concerns about the alleged adulteration of the Tirupati laddus and the potential implications for religious devotees.
Naidu’s allegations have triggered a significant political storm in Andhra Pradesh. Earlier this month, he publicly accused the previous YS Jagan Mohan Reddy-led government of allowing the use of animal fat in the preparation of the sacred laddus during its tenure. The statement sparked outrage, particularly from the ruling YSR Congress Party, which accused Naidu of making "heinous allegations" for political gain. The party has strongly denied the accusations and framed Naidu’s comments as an attempt to undermine their governance and stir religious controversy for electoral advantage.
This controversy comes at a sensitive time, as Andhra Pradesh heads towards elections, and religious matters, particularly those concerning the Tirupati Temple, hold significant political weight. The case has also taken on national significance, with many viewing the court's inquiry as a test of how political leaders should handle sensitive religious issues when in positions of power. The Supreme Court's strong words about keeping gods away from politics highlight the delicate balance between governance, religion, and public responsibility that leaders must maintain.
