"We Expect Gods To Be Kept Away From Politics": Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure Over Andhra CM's Public Statements Pending SIT Investigation On Tirupati Laddu Row

The Supreme Court has suggested that it might transfer the investigation into the alleged adulteration of Laddu Prasadam of the Tirupati Tirumala Temple from the SIT constituted by the State Government to an independent agency, on account of the public statements made by the Chief Minister about adulteration. 

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan recorded in its order, "The present petition pertains to issue which affects the sentiments of crores of people living in the entire world. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh has gone 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 CEO of the Tirupati Tirumala Devashanam had also made a statement that such adulterated ghee was never used. The four 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 the prasadam. Shri Lurhtra appearing for TTD submitted that the tankers which supplied ghee till 4th July by the same supplier were not sent for testing. However, it was only ghee received on 6th and 12th July, which were sent to NTTB and all the samples were found to be adulterated."

The Court further ordered, "It is submitted that the statement made by the CEO is only with regard to the tankers which were supplied on 6th July and 12th July. It is submitted that the ghee in the tankers till 4th July was used in the production of the laddus. He further submitted that since there were complaints and the ghee supplied were found contaminated, it was necessary to get it analysed by NTTB. Admittedly, even according to the TTD, investigation was necessary and accordingly, SIT was appointed to investigate the FIR of 25th September. It could be seen that the statement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was even prior to the registration of the FIR and the constitution of the SIT on 26th September, in as much as the Hon'ble Chief Minister has gone public on 18th September. We are prima facie of the view that when the invitation was in process, it was not appropriate for a high constitutional functionary to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people. in that view of the matter, it will be appropriate that the Solicitor General assist us in deciding as to whether the investigation by an SIT which is appointed by the State government should continue or the investigation should be conducted by an independent agency. We request the learned Solicitor General to ponder over the issue and assist us in this regard on 3rd October."

Senior Advocate Rao appeared for Swamy and submitted that the issue is a matter of concern. "The statement that is made in the public domain makes a factual assertion that the nature of the material used in prasad is contaminated. That statement by itself has far-reaching repercussions and has the ability to distort harmony and raise a whole series of issues", he submitted.  

He told the Court that the CEO of TTD has said in public that adulterated ghee was never used and that a stringent mechanism is adopted by the Board to ensure that a quality check is done before the goods enter the kitchen. "What extent should state intervention in matters like this be permitted, especially when the authority itself says that the ghee was not used?", he submitted. 

Given that an SIT is examining the matter, the matter, because of the ramifications, needs some supervision, especially because the statement of the CM has been contrived by the executive officer of the Board. "Somebody should answer the question as to what was the material on the basis of which the first statement was made about contamination", he submitted on behalf of Dr. Swamy.  

He submitted that those holding public office should have first ascertained facts before making a statement. "Having made a statement, which is controverted by someone who is in charge, can I ever expect a free and fair evaluation of the material on the ground?", he contented.

"Ex-facie the statement made in the public domain by the Chief Minister is negated", Swamy's lawyer submitted. There is a process to ensure that the material used is pure, he added. 

He submitted that it needs to be found if the testing was done of the rejected supply or of the offering. 

"I am concerned about the basis on which a public statement is made as a categorical fact. It has literally set the cat amongst the pigeons. It dilutes, completely, the respect that one would give to the deity", he argued. Giving statements without having material to back it up or doing homework is troublesome, he argued.  

"What is the responsibility that the holder of high office has while dealing with issues that have far-reaching consequences?", he submitted. 

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for the TTD then submitted, "What Dr. Swamy doesn't tell you is that the ex-chairman had appointed him to appear on behalf of the TTD earlier.  Mr. Swamy has been representing the previous administration of the TTD". 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the State government then submitted, "Is it a bona fide petition?" 

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur made submissions were also made on behalf of the Managing Director of Sudarshan News, Suresh Chavhanke. Advocate Raghav Awasti appeared on behalf of Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar who had also filed a PIL on the issue.  

Mukul Rohatgi submitted, "These are petitions which are not bonafide. They are meant to espouse the cause of the erstwhile government and to attack the present government. Dr. Swamy's petition is clearly an attempt to attack the current government and the Chief Minister".     

He submitted that there were complaints against the supplier appointed by the earlier government and hence this government did testing. 

"Was there any material with you to conclusively come to the conclusion?", Justice Gavai asked.  "We have lab reports", replied Rohatgi.

"Mr. Rohatgi, it is not clear at all. It is prima facie indicating that these were rejected ghee which were subjected to the test. If you have yourself ordered the investigation, where is the need to go to the press?", Justice Vishwanathan asked.  "This report which is in the public domain prima facie indicates that this was not the material used in the preparation", he added.   

"We expect the Gods to be kept away from politics", Justice Gavai said.

"It is very clear from report that this is not ghee that was used. Unless you are sure, how did you go to the public with that?", Justice Vishwanathan asked. 

"What was the material to show that the contaminated ghee was used in the preparation of laddus? If you had ordered an investigation, what was the necessity to go the press immediately? It affects the sentiments of not one or two lakh persons, but crores and crores", Justice Gavai asked. 

Luthra then made detailed submissions on the sequence of events and testing. 

The Court asked if the laddus were sent for testing when the TTD officials felt that the quality of the laddus were not up to mark, which was the reason why testing was ordered as per Luthra. The Court also referred to the disclaimers on the test results, and said that the reports are not conclusive. 

"When somebody gives you a report like this, does not prudence dictate that you take a second report (from some other lab)", Justice Vishwanathan said about the disclaimers in the reports. 

"Mr. Luthra, unless you show that this (adulterated ghee) was used when you went to press, these are all meaningless. Rejected ghee will have all this. Unless you show that this was used....", Justice Vishwanathan.   

Luthra replied, "Earlier shipment from the same person has been used, those laddus will be tested. Same supplier My Lord. Same company, same supplier. This was not their first supply". 

"How is the earlier shipment the same as the one that was tested and rejected? Two consignments of apple, the first consignment and the second consignment, is there not a difference?" Justice Vishwanathan asked. 

The Court then asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to address the Court. "This is not a matter of 'we' and 'they', it is a matter of faith. If this ghee was used, it is completely unacceptable and someone will have to go into that question. Whether it was used, who is responsible either for negligence, or deliberate act or some misfeasance? Ultimately this needs to be examined".  

"Your stand is that it requires to be enquired into. We would only like you to examine as to whether the investigation should be done by this SIT in the background... making such a statement in public, you know it affects the sentiments of crores of people. As I observed in the beginning, we should keep God away from politics", Justice Gavai told Tushar Mehta.  

Justice Vishwanathan repeated that there was no material to prima facie show that the adulterated ghee was used in making laddus. Justice Gavai once again objected to the public statements by the CM. 

Cause Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors & Connected matters [W.P.(C) No. 622/2024]