Source: Supreme Court     

Why in News? 

Recent Tirupati Temple ghee controversy started when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister alleged that animal fat, including beef fat and fish oil, was used in preparing sacred laddus (prasadam) during the previous YSRCP government's tenure. The allegations, based on a National Dairy Development Board lab report from July 2024, sparked widespread outrage and led to multiple petitions in the Supreme Court.  

• The Supreme court has constituted an independent Special Investigation Team, replacing the state-appointed SIT, to investigate these sensitive allegations that have affected the sentiments of millions of devotees worldwide. 

What was the Background of Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others? 

• The controversy of Tirupati Laddu centers around allegations of adulterated ghee being used in the preparation of laddus (prasadam) at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. 
• Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu made public statements on 18th  September, 2024, alleging that animal fat, including beef fat and fish oil, was used in the preparation of laddus during the previous YSRCP government's tenure. 
• The allegations were based on a laboratory report from the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) regarding ghee samples. 
• The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) has internal quality control processes:  
  • Samples are taken from trucks carrying cow ghee upon arrival 
  • Material failing to meet prescribed standards is typically returned to suppliers 
• Following the controversy, the Andhra Pradesh government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on 26th September, 2024, to investigate the matter. 

Legal Petitions Filed 

• Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Petition  
  • Seeks a court-monitored committee investigation 
  • Requests detailed report on the forensics of the ghee samples 
  • Raises specific questions about sampling methodology and political intervention 
• Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke's Petition  
  • Seeks investigation by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice 
  • Arguments based on violation of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution 
  • Requests CBI or independent central agency investigation 
  • Seeks appointment of retired judge to oversee temple management 
• Surjit Singh Yadav's Petition 
  • Filed as President of Hindu Sena 
  • Seeks investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) 
  • Claims the alleged use of animal fat hurt Hindu devotees' sentiments 
• YV Subba Reddy's Petition 
  • Filed by Rajya Sabha MP and ex-TTD Chairman 
  • Seeks independent investigation by Court-monitored Committee or retired judge with domain experts 
  • Highlights TTD's standard operating procedure for ghee testing 
  • Questions the timing of the state government's disclosure of lab reports 
• Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar's Petition 
  • Filed jointly by a historian and spiritual discourser 
  • Seeks to "divest government/bureaucratic hold over temples" 
  • Requests establishment of accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies 
• The Key Issue Raised 
  • Verification of whether adulterated ghee was used in prasadam preparation 
  • Timeline of ghee procurement and testing 
  • Authenticity and context of the laboratory report 
  • Compliance with established quality control processes 
  • Potential violations of religious practices and devotees' rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of Indian Constitution,1950. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noting the potential of the allegations to hurt sentiments of crores of devotees worldwide, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to replace the existing state-appointed SIT, emphasizing that an independent body would inspire greater confidence. 
• The Court explicitly clarified that its order should not be construed as a reflection on the credibility of the existing SIT members, stating that the directive was issued solely to assuage the feelings of devotees having faith in the deity. 
• The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, unequivocally stated that it would not permit the Court to be used as a "political battleground" and abstained from making observations on the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations. 
• In structuring the new SIT, the Court directed a composition comprising two CBI officers (nominated by the CBI Director), two officers of the State Police (nominated by the State Government), and one senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), with the investigation to be monitored by the CBI Director. 
• The Court's decision came after considering submissions from various stakeholders, including the Solicitor General of India, who had initially vouched for the competence of the state-appointed SIT while suggesting central monitoring of the investigation. 
• The bench disposed of multiple petitions, including those filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, ex-TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, Suresh Chavhanke, and Dr. Vikram Sampath, through this comprehensive order addressing the investigation of alleged adulterated ghee used in prasadam preparation. 
• While not commenting on the merits of the allegations, the Court clarified that its decision to form an independent SIT was aimed at assuaging the feelings of crores of devotees worldwide and should not be seen as a reflection on the credibility of the existing state SIT members. 

What is Article 25 of Indian Constitution, 1950 ? 

• Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion 
• Fundamental rights guaranteed freedom of conscience 
  • Right to profess religion 
    •  Means to declare freely and openly one's faith and belief. 
    • Wearing and carrying kirpans is considered part of professing the Sikh religion. 
  • Right to practice religion 
    •  Performing prescribed religious duties, rites, and rituals 
    •  Exhibiting religious beliefs through prescribed acts 
  • Right to propagate religion 
    • Spreading religious views for others' edification 
    • Limited to persuasion; does not include right to convert others 
• Restrictions and Limitations of Article 25 Subject to: 
  • Public order 
  • Morality 
  • Health 
  • Other provisions of Part III of the Constitution 
• The State can make laws to:  
  • Regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices  
  • Provide for social welfare and reform  
  • Open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus 
• For the purposes of opening religious institutions, "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. 
• The reference to Hindu religious institutions also applies to Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist institutions. 
• These rights apply equally to all persons, regardless of their religion. 
• The State's power to make laws in this area is limited to the specific purposes mentioned in the article. 

What is Article 26 of Indian Constitution, 1950 ? 

• Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs 
• This right applies to:  
  • Every religious denomination 
  • Any section of a religious denomination 
• These rights are subject to:  
  • Public order 
  • Morality 
  • Health 
• Under this article, religious denominations have the right to:  
  • Establish and maintain institutions for:  
    • Religious purposes 
    • Charitable purposes 
  • Manage their own affairs in matters of religion  
  • Own and acquire property:  
    • Movable property 
    • Immovable property 
  • Administer such property in accordance with law 
• The administration of property must be done within the framework of existing laws. 
• This article ensures autonomy for religious groups in managing their internal affairs and assets. 
• The state can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights for the sake of public order, morality, and health. 
• This provision balances religious freedom with the need for regulation in certain areas. 
• It allows religious groups to have control over their institutions and practices while still being subject to general laws.