Supreme Court questions Naidu Govt on Tirupati laddu row: ‘We expect Gods to be kept away from politics’

Hearing a clutch of petitions, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan also asked why Naidu went public with the matter without waiting for the report of the investigation ordered by his government.

“You get the report in July. September 18, you go public. You say you ordered an investigation. It is very clear from the report that this is not the ghee which had been used. Unless you are sure, how did you go public with that,” asked Justice Viswanathan. “First of all, no proof that this ghee was used. Secondly, no second opinion taken,” he added.

“You ordered an investigation through SIT (special investigation team). Till the outcome of such an investigation, what was the necessity to go to the press… We expect Gods to be kept away from politics,” said Justice Gavai.

The bench noted that Naidu made the claim even before the FIR was lodged and the SIT set up. “We are prima facie of the view that when the investigation is under process, it was not appropriate on the part of a high constitutional functionary to go public with a statement which can affect the sentiments of crores of people,” it said.

The court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, whether, in the light of Naidu’s public statements, the probe should be transferred to an independent agency. Fixing the matter for hearing on October 3, the court orally asked the state to keep away till then.

Appearing for the state government, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the petitions “were not bona fide” and were “meant to espouse the cause of the earlier government and to attack the present government”. He said the petition filed by Subramanian Swamy, who is among the petitioners, was a clear attempt to “attack the current government and the chief minister”. He said the state government had appointed an SIT to probe the allegations further.

“But was there any material with you to completely come to a conclusion,” Justice Gavai asked.

“We have lab reports,” Rohatgi responded.

“It is not clear at all. And it is prima facie indicating that this was rejected ghee which was subjected to test,” said Justice Viswanathan.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam, said it was a matter of investigation.

Pointing to certain disclaimers in the report, Justice Viswanathan said: “Now, suppose somebody gives you a report like this, doesn’t prudence dictate that you take a second opinion?”

Luthra said “India’s top lab” had tested the samples.

“You ordered an investigation through SIT. Till the outcome of such an investigation, what was the necessity to go to the press,” Justice Gavai asked.

Luthra responded that the lab reports had showed that the samples were contaminated.

“If you had ordered an investigation, what was the necessity to go to the press immediately? You know it affects the sentiments of not just 1 lakh or 2 lakh people, but crores and crores,” said Justice Gavai.

Luthra said there were complaints for a long time but the previous Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy government did not act on them. He said the current government acted after devotees complained about the quality of the laddus.

Justice Gavai then asked if those laddus were also sent for testing. “The laddu which, according to you, apparently smelled or tasted different, whether that laddu was sent for testing? Was it sent for testing… to find out as to whether it contained contaminated ghee or not,” he asked.

Luthra said he would have to find out.

“According to you, five contractors supply the ghee. Now, once you approve the use of the ghee, it’s all mixed up. Then how do you identify which contractor supplied what? So, obviously, it (sample) is taken before it is approved,” Justice Viswanathan said.

Luthra sought to draw the court’s attention to the ingredients recorded in the lab report and said it was disturbing.

“Unless there is something to show that this was used when the day you were aware, based on investigation, when you went to the press, this is all meaningless. The rejected ghee will have all this,” Justice Viswanathan said.

“It’s a matter of faith. If this ghee is used, it is completely unacceptable. And someone will have to go into that question. Whether it is used, who is responsible, either for negligence or deliberate act… because the value for which ghee is purchased is also manyfold. And these are all my assumptions. Ultimately, this needs to be examined,” the Solicitor General said.

“We appreciate your stand that it requires to be inquired into. We would only like you to examine as to whether investigation should be conducted by this SIT because in the background… making such a statement in public… it affects the sentiments of crores of people. And at least, as I observed in the beginning, we should leave God away from politics,” Justice Gavai said.

“It would have been a different matter had they sent those laddus. And after the report came, but even otherwise, if pending inquiry, such statements are by the responsible constitutional functionaries, what effect would it have on an SIT,” he added.

Justice Viswanathan said “there’s no concrete proof to show at this stage that it was used in the process of making.”

The court also cited media reports which quoted the TTD Chief Executive Officer as saying that “contaminated ghee was never used”.

In its order, the court said Luthra had submitted that “ghee which was supplied in June and till July 4 by the same supplier were not sent for analysis to the NDDB. However, it is only the ghee received in tankers supplied on July 6 and 12 which were sent to NDDB. It is submitted that four samples were taken from two tankers supplied on July 6 and two tankers on July 12. It is submitted that in all four samples, ghee was found to be adulterated. It is submitted that the statement made by the Chief Executive Officer of TTD is only with regard to the tankers which were supplied on July 6 and July 12. It is submitted that the ghee in the tankers supplied in June till July 4 was used in the production of the laddus.”