Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Subramanian Swamy's Plea Against State's Administrative Probe Into Tirupati's Prasadam Adulteration Case
Noting that a charge sheet has already been filed by the SIT, the Court held that there is no conflict of interest between the two processes and directed both to proceed strictly in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court, today, has disposed of a petition filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy seeking to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh from conducting an administrative inquiry into the Tirupati Prasadam adulteration controversy.
The Bench clarified that the State’s probe into administrative lapses is "well demarcated" from the ongoing criminal investigation and does not constitute a conflict of interest.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "That investigation is complete and a charge has been filed and a supplementary charge sheet has been filed. The matter is currently subjudice. Meanwhile, the State Government appears to have also directed an administrative inquiry i) to identify the lapses, if any, the nature of lapses, ii) the persons responsible for such lapses, and iii) the consequences of such lapses. For such an administrative inquiry, in our considered opinion, cannot be termed as overlapping with the criminal proceedings which have culminated in the filing of a chargesheet/ supplementary charge sheet. Also, there will be no conflict of interest, there will be no overlapping, and the scope of investigation/inquiry, having been well demarcated, we are satisfied that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this petition does not have a sufficient foundation. Let both the processes continue strictly in accordance with the law. So, with that clarification, the petition is disposed of."
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Court ordered, "The instant the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed, seeking an order to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh Authority from interfering in the investigation directly by this Court in another petition, which was also filed by the Petitioner. The controversy pertains to the alleged adulteration of ghee used in the preparation of...Prasadam Laddus at Tirumala. Some statements came to be made as to how the sanctity of the prasadam was compromised, so tampered with, by using adulterated ghee, etc. This led to the registration of FIR No. 470/2024 on 25th September 2024. Eventually, investigation of that FIR has been entrusted to a Special Investigation Team consisting of the representatives, comprising of the officers/agencies, mentioned in Para 9 of the order dated 4th October, 2024, passed by the Supreme Court in..."
In September 2024, amid the Tirupati Laddu controversy, BJP's Dr Subramanian Swamy filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored investigation into allegations of substandard ingredients and the use of animal fat in the preparation of ghee and laddus distributed as 'prasadam' at the revered Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). Swamy requested the appointment of a committee under the supervision of a retired judge of the Supreme Court to investigate the allegations. The Tirumala Temple, dedicated to Lord Venkateswara, holds immense religious significance for millions of Hindus worldwide, with its customs and traditions rooted in the Agamashastras and protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, as per the plea.
Luthra submitted, "This petitioner has been appearing for TTT in the past, and it's completely malafide blood...Completely malafide and this is not the first time. They just want to derail the departmental action."
"Those investigations will have to be taken to a logical conclusion. As far as the administrative lapses are concerned, there can be administrative lapses. There can be negligence. There can be criminal negligence. These are all administrative...", Chief Justice Kant said to the Counsel for the Petitioner.
"Please just have prayer 2, which is slightly wider. Now that we have realised that this seems to be a problem, and this has nothing to do with this temple alone. We are requesting that your Lordships could consider that the state or somebody examine this with reference to the other temples...And I'll just request your Lordships to just have prayer 3. Somewhere along the way, your Lordships took a view against public functionaries making statements at that time when the investigation had not even started. Investigation is over. A charge sheet is filed. For whatever it is worth. Today, the same allegations are being reiterated at public fora", Counsel for the Petitioner submitted.
"If the Chief Minister of the state uses a public platform to make a statement, then there is a problem", he added.
Background
In July 2025, in the alleged case of adulteration in the Prasadam Laddus at Tirumala Tirupati Temple, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Director, CBI, could not have directed J Venkat Rao to conduct the investigation as the same was contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court. A Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for a free and fair investigation by the SIT constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The Petitioner also sought a further declaration stating that the manner and conduct of the SIT officials were illegal and arbitrary.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed a PIL seeking a CBI probe into the alleged use of animal fat in making Tirupati laddus under the previous Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy-led regime.
Previously, on October 4, 2024, the Court directed the formation of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations of adulteration in the Tirupati Temple's Laddu Prasadam.
On September 30, 2024, the Bench had suggested that it might transfer the investigation into the alleged adulteration of Laddu Prasadam of the Tirupati Tirumala Temple from the SIT constituted by the State Government to an independent agency, on account of the public statements made by the Chief Minister about adulteration.
Another PIL was filed by the Managing Director of Sudarshan News, Suresh Chavhanke, seeking the formation of a committee of retired Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices of High Courts to investigate allegations of adulteration in the preparation of the famed Tirupati Laddu, a 'prasadam' offered at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD).
Cause Title: Subramanian Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P. (C) No. 234 of 2026]