Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Shift Tirupati Laddu Case Trial

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea to move the Tirupati laddu ghee case trial outside Andhra Pradesh, keeping proceedings in the state.

By News National Editorial Team

The Supreme Court of India has rejected a petition seeking to transfer the trial in the alleged Tirupati laddu ghee adulteration case from Andhra Pradesh to another state.

The decision, delivered on November 5, keeps the proceedings within Andhra Pradesh, where the case has attracted considerable public attention because of its connection to the preparation of the sacred Tirumala laddu prasadam.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition filed by Machindra Shantaram Lanke, a Maharashtra-based dairy businessman and managing director of Malganga Milk and Agro Products Pvt Ltd.

The petitioner had argued that the political atmosphere surrounding the controversy could affect his right to a fair trial.

Why the transfer was requested

The petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, argued that statements made by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan had created a politically hostile environment.

The defence also raised concerns about the language difficulties that some accused persons from northern India might face during proceedings in Andhra Pradesh.

The petition further referred to a forensic report that, according to the defence, had ruled out the presence of animal fat in the ghee. The counsel argued that continued political statements about the controversy could prejudice the accused.

The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded that the trial should be moved to another state.

Why the court declined the request

The bench noted that several witnesses were from Andhra Pradesh and that shifting the trial could cause inconvenience.

The court also referred to the independent Special Investigation Team constituted under its supervision to investigate the allegations.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the court had already addressed concerns about public statements and the investigation.

The bench ultimately dismissed the plea, stating that it was not inclined to transfer the trial.

The decision does not amount to a final determination of the allegations against the accused. It concerns the location of the trial, rather than the merits of the criminal case.

Background of the controversy

The controversy began in September 2024, when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu alleged that animal fat had been used in the preparation of Tirumala laddus during the previous YSR Congress Party government.

The allegations triggered a political dispute and widespread public concern because the laddu is a sacred offering associated with Lord Venkateswara at the Tirumala temple.

The YSR Congress Party disputed the allegations, while the ruling Telugu Desam Party cited laboratory findings in support of its position.

In October 2024, the Supreme Court constituted an independent five-member Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter. The panel included officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation and Andhra Pradesh Police, along with a senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

The investigation was placed under the supervision of the CBI director.

The court had also cautioned against turning the controversy into a political battleground.

With the transfer request rejected, the trial remains in Andhra Pradesh. The case will continue through the legal process, where evidence and arguments will be examined in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the distinction between allegations, investigation findings and a final judicial determination.

For devotees and the public, the controversy remains sensitive because it concerns the preparation of a religious offering. However, the legal proceedings must establish the facts through evidence and due process.

The latest ruling does not conclude the underlying case, and the allegations must not be treated as proven merely because the transfer petition was dismissed.