Supreme Court questions Andhra Pradesh government over Tirupati prasadam controversy

Reading Time: 4mins

The Supreme Court has sharply questioned the Andhra Pradesh government regarding the ongoing ‘Tirupati Prasadam’ row, emphasizing the need to keep “Gods away from politics.” The court was critical of the state’s decision to go to the press while the issue was still under investigation.

The controversy revolves around allegations that laddus, served as prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala, were prepared using ghee contaminated with animal fat. A series of petitions were filed, calling for a court-monitored investigation into the matter.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court queried the Andhra Pradesh government’s counsel on the necessity of publicizing the issue after an investigation was already underway. “When the lab reports indicated that the ghee used in the consecrated sweets was being tested, what was the need for them to go to the press after ordering a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe?” the bench asked. The apex court urged the state to refrain from making statements that could affect public sentiment, especially while the SIT was actively investigating the matter.

In defense, the government claimed it was still examining the issue, but the Supreme Court pushed back, seeking clarity on whether the ghee found to be non-compliant with standards was indeed used in the preparation of prasadam. The state’s response was vague, prompting further scrutiny from the bench.

Senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra, representing the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), pointed out that people had complained about the laddus not tasting as usual, but the Supreme Court noted that there was no clear proof the tainted ghee had been used for the prasadam. The court added that the public was unaware of the lab reports and only an official statement had been issued so far.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also weighed in, calling the issue a matter of faith. “If this ghee was used, it’s unacceptable. It has to be seen who was responsible, and this needs to be examined,” he told the court. He assured the bench that the matter would be thoroughly investigated.

The court expressed concern over whether such statements by the state, which could affect devotees’ sentiments, should have been made public. “What was the need for going to the press and making public statements when the SIT was ordered?” the bench questioned.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that there is no clear evidence at this stage to show that the allegedly contaminated ghee was used for the prasadam laddus. However, the court did direct the Solicitor General to examine whether the state-appointed SIT should continue with the probe or if an independent investigation by a different agency would be more appropriate.