The Supreme Court today dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul that sought a CBI probe into the controversial ingredients of the famous Tirupati laddu and requested that Tirupati city be declared a separate state or Union Territory. A bench, headed by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, heard the case, as the petitioner Paul was representing himself in court.
Background
The controversy over the Tirupati laddu started with a report from the laboratory that was released by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu. It had found samples of ghee used while making laddus within the Tirumala Tirupati Temple during the previous YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government contained foreign fats, including beef fat and fish oil. Several court-monitored investigations followed and increased accountability over government-run Hindu temples13.
On 4th October, 2024, the Supreme Court formed an independent SIT to investigate the said allegations regarding the alleged adulteration of ghee applied in preparing the laddus used as prasadam for distribution at the temple15.
Case- Law
In his application to the present court, Dr. Paul complained that his constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26 were violated, but the violation was made of Articles 14 and 21. But Justice Gavai curtailed him too: “We cannot order a separate State to be formed for a particular [temple].” Paul argued that if Vatican City was enacted for a minuscule population of Catholics, then a separate state was incumbent upon Tirupati’s 3.4 million residents16.
Justice Gavai countered the argument of Paul, arguing that if such an argument was to be held true for all, it would lead to a different state for many other important religious centers in India as well which included Jagannath Puri and Kedarnath23.
Dismissal of the Petition
Just as the court stated that it intends to dismiss the petition, Paul urged that if it was not prepared to accede to his original prayer, it should at least impose a time frame on the investigation conducted by the SIT, which had not even started since its formation a month ago. The court refused to fix any time frame for investigation and dismissed Paul’s petition without further direction128.
Dr. K.A. Paul has stated that he intends to file a review petition by November 262.
It is one of those cases that reflects the protracted litigation and controversy over religious activities and governance in India, and the intricacies of the contentious questions associated with food safety and religious offerings at government-run temples.
