The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s controversial claim that animal fat was used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus, remarking that “at least the Gods should be kept out of politics.” The court demanded evidence supporting this claim, noting that the Chief Minister made the statement on September 18, despite the FIR being filed only on September 25 and a special investigation team (SIT) being formed on September 26.
During a hearing on a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged use of animal fat in Tirupati laddus, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the report cited by the Andhra Pradesh government.
Supreme Court’s Remarks:
The court questioned the clarity of the report cited by the state, suggesting it was unclear and possibly misleading. Justice Viswanathan remarked, “The report is not at all clear. If an investigation was already ordered, what was the need to make public statements? The report came in July, yet the statement was made in September.” The court also suggested the report prima facie indicated the use of adulterated material in the laddu preparation.
Criticizing the political overtones in religious matters, the bench observed, “We are of the preliminary view that when an investigation is ongoing, it is inappropriate for high constitutional authorities to make statements that could affect public sentiment without any substantial evidence.”
Concerns About Political Involvement:
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, faced sharp questions from Justice Viswanathan, who emphasized that the lab report had disclaimers and was not conclusive. “If an investigation was already ordered, why was there a need to make the issue public?” the court asked.
Next Steps:
The Supreme Court also sought the assistance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to decide whether the state-appointed SIT should continue with the probe or if an independent agency should take over the investigation. The bench stated, “It would be appropriate for the Solicitor General to assist us in determining whether the SIT should proceed or if the investigation should be conducted by an independent body.”
