The Supreme Court of India on Monday took a strong stance on the ongoing controversy surrounding the Prasadam served at the Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh. The court questioned the actions of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, who had publicly accused the previous YSR Congress Party regime of using substandard ghee containing animal fat in the preparation of the famed Tirupati laddu.
The court expressed concern over Naidu’s premature pronouncements, stating, “What was the need to go to the press at all, when you yourself ordered investigation?” Justice Viswanathan, part of the bench hearing the case, further questioned, “Whether such a statement should have been made that affects the sentiments of the devotees? What was the need of going to the press and making public statement when SIT was ordered? Prima facie there is nothing at least to show, no concrete proof to show at this stage, that the same ghee was used and procured. Even pending investigation when such statements are made by responsible public functionaries then what effect it will have on the SIT? What was the material?”
The court also emphasized the importance of faith, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stating, “It is matter of faith. If contaminated ghee was used, its unacceptable.” The court questioned the lack of concrete evidence, asking, “Where is the proof that same ghee was used in preparation of laddus?”
While the court was informed that the same supplier was used, Justice Viswanathan pointed out, “How do you segregate the contractors? Nowhere is it clear that the same ghee was used.”
The Supreme Court highlighted that Naidu’s accusations about the alleged use of animal fat in the laddus were made before an FIR was lodged or a Special Investigations Team (SIT) was constituted. The court deemed it inappropriate for a high-ranking constitutional functionary to make public statements while a probe was underway.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings on October 3, including those seeking a court-monitored investigation. The court has asked Solicitor General Mehta to assist in deciding whether the ongoing investigation should continue to be conducted by the state’s SIT or if an independent agency should be appointed to ensure a fair and unbiased inquiry.
