NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making a statement on September 18 about the use of contaminated ghee with animal fat in preparation of Tirupati Laddoos, even prior to registration of FIR and ordering an SIT probe into the matter.
The top court said the lab report prima facie indicated that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test and if the investigation was ordered, what was the need to go to press, it expected Gods would be kept away from politics!
"Where was the justification for him to go press on September 18?There was no concrete proof that the contaminated ghee was used actually in preparation of Laddoos. There were five suppliers, the supply from only one supplier was found to be have been contaminated," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.
The court also asked if ghee from all the suppliers were mixed before the use.
"We are prima facie of the view when the investigation was pending it was not appropriate for the person holding the highest constitutional office to make statement," the bench said.
The court was hearing petitions filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, historian Dr Vikram Sampath and another person and Sudarshan TV channel Editor Suresh Chavhanke.
The court asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instruction if the present SIT ordered by the state government should be allowed to continue or some other SIT should be formed.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Board respectively tried to defend the statement of the Chief Minister, contending since the supply was apparently found not to be conforming to standards it was sent to National Dairy Development Board lab in Anand for testing, which resulted into the report showing contamination.
"Does the prudence not dictate you to take a second opinion in the matter," the bench asked the counsel.
Swamy's counsel contended he was concerned with the basis of which a categorical statement is made by the Chief Minister as, it diluted the respect to Deity and affected sentiments of devotees across the world.
Luthra and Rohatgi accused Swamy of espousing the cause of former TTD's chairman Y V Subba Reddy.
Reddy has separately filed a plea seeking an interim relief in the form of a detailed forensic report on the source and quality of the ghee and a temporary gag order on publicising the issue to protect devotees' sentiments.
Mehta, on his part, said this is a matter faith and if the contaminated ghee was used it was unacceptable, it was to be examined who was responsible.
The court fixed the matter for considering a response from the Solicitor General on October 3.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Naidu claimed that animal fat was used in preparing Tirupati laddus during the previous YS Jaganmohan Reddy-led government, triggering a massive row.
The YSR Congress Party has accused Naidu of indulging in "heinous allegations" for political gain.
In its order, the bench recorded that the petition pertained to sentiments affecting crores of people living in the entire world.
"The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement that the animal fat was being used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous regime. However, some press reports also show that the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam had also made a statement that such an adulterated ghee was never used," the bench noted.
The court also said Luthra, appearing for the TTD, the ghee which was supplied in June and till July 4 supplied by the same supplier were not sent to analysis. However, it was the ghee which was received on two tankers each on July 6 and 12 which were sent to NDDB.
It was submitted that in all the four samples the ghee was found to be adulterated. It is submitted that the ghee in the samples supplied in June and till 4th July were used in production of laddoos.
"Admittedly, even according to the State Government, an investigation was necessary and SIT came to be formed to investigate the FIR on September 25. It could be therefore said that the statement made by the Chief Minister was prior to the FIR and the constitution of the SIT inasmuch as the Chief Minister had gone public on September 18. We are prima facie of the view that when the investigation was under process, it was not appropriate for the high constitutional authority to make a statement which can affect the sentiments of crores of people," the bench said.
