Tirupati: The Supreme Court has sought clarity from the central government on the mode of investigations into the allegations that adulterated ghee was used for laddu preparations at the TTD.
“Please advise whether the state-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) should continue the probe or the probe should be transferred to another agency,” the court asked Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta while taking up a batch of petitions on Monday.
Mehta told the bench that it was a matter of faith. If contaminated ghee was used in the preparation of laddus, that was unacceptable, he said.
The Supreme Court questioned Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu why he “prematurely” publicised allegations that the previous (YSRC) government’s appointees in TTD used adulterated ghee containing animal fat for the laddus at the Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirumala.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan expressed concern over the “lack of conclusive evidence” to support these claims. It asked what was the necessity of making public statements when a state probe was underway.
"At least ods should be kept away from politics," the bench remarked while highlighting the sensitive nature of the issue.
Justice Gavai asked if Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu had any material to conclusively determine the use of animal fat in the temple's laddus.
Justice Viswanathan noted that the ghee sample had been rejected as per reports, and asked why a press statement was issued even after a probe was ordered.
The court questioned whether the laddus had been tested, and stressed that they should have been tested before making a public statement about its quality issues.
“There was no prima facie evidence proving that the ghee in question was used in the making the laddus,” the court observed.
The court also pointed out that the public statements from the CM and others affected devotees' sentiments, even as there was a lack of concrete proof as yet. It expressed concern over the impact of such statements on the investigation itself.
“The CM's statement was made (on Sept 18), even before the FIR was lodged (on Sept 25) and before the SIT was formed. We are of the prima facie view that when an investigation was ordered, it was not appropriate for a high constitutional functionary to go public with the (available, incomplete) information," the bench stated.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the TTD faced tough questions from the bench. The court noted that TTD executive officer had contradicted the CM's statement.
Luthra attempted to explain that the statement referred to specific tankers. He said, "The ghee supplied in June and up to July 4 was not sent for analysis. Only the ghees from tankers delivered on July 6 and 12 were sent to NDDB."
The court made it clear that it was not satisfied with such responses. It said, "There was no basis at all for public statements. Let us not mince words when an investigation is already ordered.”
“The petition concerns the sentiments of millions (of devotees) worldwide. It challenges the AP chief minister's public statement alleging the use of animal fat in Tirupati laddus under the previous regime. Press reports suggest the TTD executive officer denied any instance of use of adulterated ghee,” the court noted.
Luthra mentioned complaints about the laddus' quality and possible contamination, citing an NDDB lab report.
However, Justice Viswanathan noted that these routine tests are used to justify rejecting ghee batches and there is no concrete evidence that the contaminated ghee was used in making the offerings. He emphasized that this wasn't the time for (the CM and others to make) public statements.
Several petitions seeking an investigation into the allegations have been filed before the Court -- by former MP Subramanian Swamy, YSRC leader and former TTD chairman YV Subba Reddy and others. They sought various directions from the court, including an order for regular inspection of ingredients used in religious offerings at major temples across India and establishment of a national regulatory framework.
Swamy's counsel, Rajshekhar Rao, argued that Chief Minister Naidu’s statement could have far-reaching implications and could potentially disturb communal harmony. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, opposed the petitions, particularly Swamy's, calling them “attempts to attack” the present alliance government.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for October 3 and asked the solicitor general to provide input on the future course of the investigation.
