Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Shift Tirupati Laddu Trial
The Supreme Court on Thursday, November 5, 2026, rejected a petition seeking the transfer of the Tirupati laddu ghee adulteration case outside Andhra Pradesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that sufficient grounds had not been established to relocate the trial, despite concerns raised by an accused businessman about political interference and the possibility of an unfair hearing.
Accused Cites Political Statements and Hostile Atmosphere
The petition was filed by Machindra Shantaram Lanke, a Maharashtra-based businessman and Managing Director of Malganga Milk and Agro Products Pvt Ltd.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Lanke, argued that repeated public statements by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan had created a hostile political environment.
He also maintained that a forensic report had ruled out animal fat in the ghee, but political statements concerning the controversy continued.
The petitioner requested that proceedings be transferred to a neighbouring state.
Supreme Court Cites Witnesses and Independent Investigation
The bench declined the request, observing that several witnesses belonged to Andhra Pradesh and transferring proceedings would cause practical difficulties.
The court also referred to its earlier directions addressing concerns about public statements by political leaders.
Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the petitioner could approach the court again if further difficulties arose.
The judges noted that an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted under Supreme Court supervision, had investigated the allegations.
Tirupati Laddu Adulteration Case Remains Under Trial
The controversy originated from allegations that adulterated ghee, potentially containing animal fat, had been supplied for preparing laddus distributed as prasadam at the Tirumala temple.
On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court constituted a five-member independent SIT operating under the supervision of the Central Bureau of Investigation Director.
The court had also emphasised that the controversy should not become a political battleground.
Thursday’s decision concerns the location of the trial and does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
