Today(30th Sept),The Supreme Court of India has emphasized the need for separation between religion and politics while addressing petitions about the quality of ghee in Tirupati temple’s sacred laddoos. The controversy arose from allegations of animal fat in the ghee, leading to the court’s criticism of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s public comments during an ongoing investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(30th Sept), The Supreme Court of India has sent a strong message about the separation of religion and politics. The court expressed its discontent with Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s public statements concerning a controversy involving the alleged presence of animal fats in the ghee used to prepare laddoos at the famous Tirupati temple. This contentious issue, which sparked a political and communal debate, was at the center of three petitions. These petitions revolved around a Gujarat lab report that claimed the ghee used for temple offerings contained fish oil, beef tallow, and lard (pig fat).
The court expressed concern that mixing religion with politics can have far-reaching negative implications.
As Justice BR Gavai remarked-
“When you hold a constitutional position, we expect the divine to be kept separate from politics. If you had already initiated an investigation, what was the necessity of addressing the press? The lab report was received in July, while your statement was made in September, and the report itself is quite ambiguous.”
Justice Gavai’s words were directed at the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister’s public statements, made on September 20, in which he accused his political rival, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, and his previous administration of using substandard ghee with animal fats to prepare the laddoos offered at the Tirupati temple.
The court’s discontent was evident as it questioned why the Chief Minister decided to go public with such a statement when an investigation had already been ordered by his administration.
“You ordered an SIT (Special Investigation Team). Until the inquiry concludes, what was the need to speak to the press? You have consistently taken this approach; this is the second time it has happened.”
-Justice Gavai remarked, reprimanding the Andhra Pradesh government.
Justice KV Viswanathan was equally sharp in his critique:
“Unless you were sure (about the adulteration), how did you go to public? What (then) was the purpose of investigation?”
The issue escalated when members of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Jana Sena, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) echoed Naidu’s concerns, triggering a significant political uproar in the southern state. In response to the claims, a ‘purification’ ceremony was held at the temple to address the alleged contamination.
The court emphasized that the allegations were not backed by any conclusive evidence.
“Where is proof this was the ghee used to prepare the laddoos?”
– the court inquired.
Despite receiving complaints about the quality of the ghee, it had not been definitively established whether this ghee was actually used in the preparation of the laddoos offered at the temple.
Justice Gavai questioned the ongoing investigation, stating-
“(Then) what was the need to go to the press immediately? You need to respect religious sentiments.”
The court further highlighted the sensitive nature of the case, especially given the religious sentiments involved.
“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?”
-the bench asked.
Adding to the criticism, the court remarked-
“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.”
The court was clear that public statements made prematurely by individuals in positions of power can affect the integrity of the investigation.
“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 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), responsible for the management of the Tirupati temple, faced its own scrutiny during the hearing. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing TTD, was questioned by the court for not adequately responding to its queries regarding the ghee used in temple offerings.
The bench pointed out that the TTD Executive Officer had contradicted the Chief Minister’s claims, but Luthra argued that the petitioners were basing their arguments on newspaper reports. He also mentioned that the Chief Minister’s statement referred only to a few tankers, not all of them. The court, however, responded sharply-
“Obtain instructions before stating your position. There is no evidence to support the claim that contaminated ghee was used; that is not your position. You currently have no response. Public statements lacked any basis, and let’s be clear about this, especially since an investigation was ordered!”
The ongoing controversy has attracted multiple petitions, with four of them being filed before the Supreme Court. These petitioners include prominent figures like former Member of Parliament Dr. Subramanian Swamy, YSR Congress Party leader and former TTD chairperson YV Subba Reddy, historian Vikram Sampath, Vedic speaker Dushyanth Sridhar, and journalist Suresh Chavhanke.
Dr. Swamy, represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, argued that the Chief Minister’s public statement had far-reaching implications
“I am here as a devotee as well. This is a matter of great concern. The press statement regarding the contamination has significant implications and could raise various other issues, potentially disrupting communal harmony.”
-Rao emphasized, reflecting on the political and religious ramifications of Naidu’s statements.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, opposed the petitions, particularly Dr. Swamy’s, claiming that they were politically motivated.
“These petitions are not bonafide but only to attack the present government. Dr. Swamy’s shows clearly. I have appointed SIT,”
-Rohatgi submitted.
The next hearing is scheduled for October 3.
