On September 30, the Supreme Court of India reprimanded Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee in the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. The Court questioned the appropriateness of the Chief Minister’s statements, given that the matter was still under investigation. It was also noted that a laboratory report indicated that the ghee samples tested were rejected batches, not those actually used in making the prasadam.
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing three petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the controversy surrounding Tirupati laddus. The said issue surrounding the use erupted during September mid, after Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu claimed that the world renowned consecrated sweet Tirupati laddus contain “beef tallow, fish oil” and other substandard ingredients. The purported lab report that was being replied upon by CM Naidu also claimed the presence of “lard” (relating to pig fat) in the samples. Notably, the samples of the Tirupati laddu were sent to a Gujarat-based livestock laboratory, and the sample receipt date was July 9, 2024 and the lab report was dated July 16.
In its order, the bench highlighted the significance of the case, stating that it involves the religious sentiments of millions worldwide. The bench noted that the Chief Minister went public on September 18, accusing the previous government of using adulterated ghee with animal fat in the laddus. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) had denied these claims, stating that such ghee was never used. The petitions filed sought an independent investigation and regulation of the manufacturing of prasadam at religious trusts.
Brief about the petitions:
So far, five petitions have been filed seeking various reliefs, including a Court-monitored investigation into allegations regarding the adulteration of ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus and greater accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies.
- Petition by Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke
Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke, Editor of Sudarshan News TV, has filed a petition seeking an investigation by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice into the issue. He has argued that using non-vegetarian ingredients in the prasadam violates the fundamental religious rights of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect the freedom of religion and the right of religious groups to manage their affairs. Chavhanke has also requested the appointment of a retired judge to oversee the management of temples to ensure transparency and adherence to religious customs.
- Petition by Surjit Singh Yadav
Surjit Singh Yadav, President of Hindu Sena, has filed a second petition seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged use of adulterated ghee in the laddus. Yadav claims that the use of animal fat in the prasadam deeply hurt the sentiments of Hindu devotees of Tirupati Balaji.
- Petition by Dr. Subramanian Swamy
Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also filed a petition, seeking an investigation monitored by the Court. He has advocated for the formation of a committee to look into the matter and has requested a detailed forensic report on the ghee samples tested by the lab, including information on their source. Swamy argues that the issue should have remained within the confines of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) but was politicised, causing emotional distress to millions of devotees. He has posed several specific questions in his petition, including:
- How was the ghee sample procured by the lab?
- Was the ghee sample taken from what was used in offerings or from rejected lots?
- Who supplied the adulterated ghee?
- Could the lab report have been a false positive?
- Was there political interference in releasing the report?
- Petition by YV Subba Reddy
Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy has also filed a petition seeking an independent investigation by a Court-monitored committee or a retired judge with domain experts. Reddy has requested a detailed report on the forensic analysis of the ghee samples, including the procurement process. He highlights that standard operating procedures at Tirumala involve testing ghee upon arrival at the temple premises, and any non-compliant ghee is rejected. He argues that claims about adulterated ghee being used in prasadam are false. Reddy also criticises Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s remarks, which he claims have caused distress to many devotees of Lord Venkateswara. His petition notes discrepancies between the statements of the TTD and the Chief Minister, particularly questioning the silence of the state government for two months after the lab report was obtained in July 2024.
- Petition by Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar
Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath and spiritual speaker Dushyanth Sridhar have jointly filed the fifth petition, calling for the removal of government and bureaucratic control over Hindu temples. They are advocating for the establishment of accountability in temples managed by government bodies.
Out of these five petitions, three—filed by Subramanian Swamy, YV Subba Reddy, and Vikram Sampath—were listed today for hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
Arguments raised during the hearing:
Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra, representing Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, informed the bench today that ghee samples supplied in June and until July 4 had not been tested. However, ghee received on July 6 and 12 was sent for analysis to the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), where all four samples were found to be adulterated. It was argued by them that the ghee supplied in June and early July had already been used in producing the laddus. The State Government had acknowledged the need for an investigation and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) following an FIR lodged on September 25, while the Chief Minister’s public statement preceded these actions.
In Subramanian Swamy’s petition, Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing Dr. Swamy, argued that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu made an unfounded claim that the ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus was adulterated. However, the Executive Officer of the TTD contradicted this statement, asserting that such ghee was never used. Rao emphasised that when high-ranking officials make such statements without sufficient evidence, it can have serious consequences and disrupt social harmony.
Rao further stated, “Those in responsible positions are expected to verify facts before making definitive claims. The CM’s statement, which has been disputed by TTD, requires oversight. If the prasadam of the deity is being questioned, it must be thoroughly examined. The CM’s public statement raises concerns about the potential for a free and fair inquiry.”
In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that Swamy’s petition lacked sincerity and was politically motivated, intended to support the previous YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party) government. Rohatgi further claimed that Swamy’s petition was nearly identical to one filed by former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Suresh Chavhanke, supported the call for an independent investigation into the matter.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court was concerned about the propriety of the Chief Minister’s statement, questioning whether it was appropriate for such a high-ranking official to comment on a matter that could affect the sentiments of millions while an investigation was still underway. The Court questioned whether the SIT investigation should continue or if an independent agency should take over.
During the hearing, the Court raised several pointed questions to the State Government and TTD officials. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the lab report seemed to test rejected ghee, and it was unclear whether the ghee in question was actually used to make the laddus. Justice Viswanathan also noted that the lab report itself contained some disclaimers. According to LiveLaw, Justice Viswanathan said that “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,”
The Court expressed frustration over the Chief Minister’s decision to go public, with Justice Viswanathan asking Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Andhra Pradesh, “If you ordered an investigation, what was the need to go to the press?”
Justice Gavai further raised concerns about the timing of the public statement, asking why the Chief Minister would make such a claim on September 18 when the investigation was still in progress. Justice Gavai pointedly questioned “When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?”
The bench emphasised that as a constitutional authority, the Chief Minister should not have involved religious matters in political statements. “When you hold a constitutional office… We expect the Gods to be kept away from the politicians,” Justice Gavai remarked as per LiveLaw.
The bench questioned whether the contaminated ghee was ever used in the preparation of the laddus, with Justice Viswanathan emphasising the need for caution before making public statements about religious offerings. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a second opinion on the lab results and stressed the importance of prudence in such sensitive matters.
“This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus,” Justice Viswanathan observed.
He further stated that “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.”
The hearing concluded with the Court suggesting that while an investigation was necessary, the key question was whether the SIT formed by the State should continue or if an independent probe was required. Justice Gavai also requested Luthra to obtain a clearer statement from TTD regarding the alleged use of the adulterated ghee. The case was adjourned pending further instructions from the Union Government. The Court asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Union Government on whether a central investigation is required.
Related:
Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed
Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism?