On Monday, September 30, the Supreme Court held a hearing regarding the Tirupati Laddu controversy. During this session, the Supreme Court reprimanded Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, questioning why he made a statement two months after a report was released in July.
A lawyer representing Subramanian Swamy argued in court that such statements have a significant impact on the public. He expressed concern that if the Chief Minister himself makes such comments, it undermines the possibility of an impartial investigation by the state government.
Swamy’s Connection to TTD
The lawyer questioned who the supplier of the ghee was and whether there was a system in place for an immediate investigation. He emphasized the need for the court to oversee the case. Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, countered that Swamy had been associated with the TTD Trust. He questioned whether Swamy’s petition could be considered impartial.
See here also : karnataka-court-orders-registration-of-fri-against-nirmala-sitharaman-on-electoral-bond-issue
Rohatgi stated that Swamy’s intention was clear: to target the state government. Justice Vishwanathan responded that Swamy claimed the sample taken was of ghee not used by the TTD Trust. Justice B.R. Gavai remarked that it was inappropriate to make such statements while an investigation was ongoing, noting that the Chief Minister’s position is a constitutional one.
‘Why Make a Statement Two Months After the Report?’
Justice Vishwanathan questioned why a statement was made two months after the July report. He asked why a statement was issued when there was uncertainty about which ghee sample was tested. Siddharth Luthra, the state government’s lawyer, explained that the cooperative ‘Nandini’ from Karnataka had supplied ghee for the past 50 years but was changed by the previous government.
Justice Gavai asked why it was necessary to make a statement without fully confirming the facts. In response, the state lawyer detailed when the ghee arrived and which samples were sent for testing. The Supreme Court insisted that politics should not be mixed with religious matters.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai pointed out that an SIT was formed on September 26, but the statement was made before that date. Justice Vishwanathan noted that the Chief Minister could have mentioned that the tender for ghee was incorrectly allocated under the previous government, instead of directly questioning the offering.
