NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu‘s claim that animal fat was used in making Tirupati laddus, stating that at least the Gods should be kept out of politics.
The court sought proof of the claim and noted that the chief minister made the statement on September 18, despite the FIR being lodged on September 25 and a special investigation team (SIT) being constituted on September 26.
During the hearing of a batch of pleas, including those seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged use of animal fat in making Tirupati laddus, the apex court expressed concerns about the report cited by the Andhra government to support their claim.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said during the hearing:
- The apex court reprimanded Andhra government and showed apprehensions on the report it cited to claim the ghee contains animal fat. “(Report) is not at all clear. If you had already ordered investigation, what was the need to go to the press? Report came in July, statement came in September,” Justice Viswanathan said adding that the report prima facie indicates that the adulterated material used in preparation.
- The bench criticized the alleged involvement of politics in religious matters, stating, “We are prima facie of the view that when investigation was under process, it was not appropriate on part of high constitutional functionary to make statement which can affect
public sentiments without any basis.” - Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government was questioned by Justice Viswanathan about the need to go to the press when an investigation had already been ordered. “There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press,” Justice Viswanathan asked.
- The Supreme Court also sought the assistance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in deciding whether the state-appointed SIT should continue with the probe or if an independent agency should conduct the investigation. The court stated, “It would be appropriate that the SG assists us in deciding as to whether the SIT already appointed should continue…or should the probe be conducted by an independent agency.”