The Court further inquired whether the laddus, which served as the basis for the investigation, had been sent for testing. It remarked that it might have been more appropriate to conduct tests on the laddus first before making any public claims. Additionally, the Court noted that there was no prima facie evidence to indicate that the ghee in question was used in the preparation of the laddus.

 

"Whether such a statement should have been made that affects the sentiments of the devotees? What was the need of going to the press and making public statement when SIT was ordered? Prima facie there is nothing atleast to show, no concrete proof to show at this stage, that the same ghee was used and procured. Even pending investigation when such statements are made by responsible public functionaries then what effect it will have on the SIT? What was the material?"

The Court informed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), that he was not adequately addressing the Court's queries regarding this matter.

"You have still not answered. There is nothing to show that ghee was used. These are processes used to justify the rejection and stop payment!"

When the Court highlighted that the TTD Executive Officer had contradicted the Chief Minister's claims, Luthra responded by stating that the petitioners were relying on newspaper reports to support their assertions. He further clarified that the statement pertained to certain tankers specifically.

"Take instructions before you place your stand. There is nothing to say contaminated one was used, that is not your own stand. Today you have no answer. There was no basis at all for public statements, let us not mince words on it, when investigation was ordered!," the Court said in response.

The Court remarked that if there were complaints, samples should have been collected from every tanker rather than targeting a specific one. In its order following the hearing, the Court noted that the Chief Minister had made his statement even before the FIR was filed and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed.

"We are of the prima facie view that when investigation was ordered, it was not appropriate for a high constitutional functionary go public with the information."

The Court accordingly requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to clarify whether the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by the State should be allowed to continue with the probe or if the investigation should be transferred to a different agency. The matter is scheduled for another hearing on October 3.

At least four petitions seeking an investigation into the allegations have been filed with the Supreme Court. The petitioners include former Member of Parliament Dr. Subramanian Swamy, YSR Congress Party leader and former Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam chairperson Y.V. Subba Reddy, historian Vikram Sampath, Vedic speaker Dushyanth Sridhar, and Sudarshan News anchor Suresh Chavhanke.

Swamy has requested the establishment of a court-monitored committee to investigate the allegations, particularly since the TTD Executive Officer contradicted CM Naidu's statement. His counsel, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, began arguments in the case today.

"I am here as a devotee too. This is a matter of concern too. The statement made in the press about the contamination has far reaching implications and can raise a whole lot of other issues and disturb communal harmony," Rao submitted.

He further emphasized that Swamy's concern was solely about the basis on which the Chief Minister had made a categorical statement.