SIT Investigation into Laddu Ghee Adulteration Faces Intense Political Scrutiny
In Vijayawada, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the controversial laddu ghee adulteration case finds itself at the center of a political storm. Both ruling and opposition parties have launched a barrage of allegations and counter-allegations, raising serious questions about potential shortcomings in the investigation process. The SIT's methodology and conclusions are being scrutinized from multiple angles, creating a complex legal and political landscape.
Testing Procedures and Laboratory Competence Questioned
Ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) members have expressed significant doubts about the investigation's thoroughness. While the SIT report confirmed that ghee was adulterated with synthetic materials, it remained conspicuously silent on the crucial issue of animal fat contamination. This omission has raised eyebrows across political lines.
Finance Minister Payyavula Keshav highlighted concerns about the chemical compounds found in the adulterated product. "Chemicals like acetic acid, mono-glycerides and lactic acid, which were found in the ghee-like product, can be made either from plant-based fats or from animal fats and were imported from South Korea," he noted. While not directly criticizing the SIT, Keshav emphasized that investigators should have examined the source of these chemical compounds more thoroughly, calling it "an important aspect which cannot be ignored."
Another critical issue involves laboratory testing protocols. After the National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI) stated it lacked competence to test for animal fat adulteration, the SIT failed to send samples to a competent laboratory for this specific analysis. This gap in testing has left unanswered the most controversial question surrounding the entire case.
Omissions in Accused List Draw Criticism
The SIT's final chargesheet, which has yet to be taken into cognizance by the trial court, has drawn particular criticism for who it includes - and who it excludes. Ruling party leaders point out that despite allegations that the then-chairman of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) knew about ghee adulteration in 2022, and that additional executive officer Dharma Reddy failed to follow up on test results, neither was included in the list of accused.
Similarly, the procurement committee comprising Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy and Bhumana Karunakar Reddy faced criticism in the SIT report but escaped being named as accused. The investigation found fault with Anil Kumar Singhal, who served as executive officer when tender conditions were relaxed, but did not examine KS Jawahar Reddy, who held the same position when the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) confirmed the adulteration.
Inconsistencies in Tender Process Investigation
The SIT report submitted to the government revealed another layer of complexity. Officials who initially strengthened tender rules made "diagonally opposite" recommendations just five months later without any apparent justification. However, the investigation stopped short of examining who instructed these officials to change the tender rules, leaving another critical question unanswered.
This pattern of identifying problems but not pursuing them to their logical conclusion has frustrated political leaders across the spectrum. The SIT's approach has created what many see as an incomplete picture of responsibility and accountability in the case.
Government Response and Legal Considerations
Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has taken a firm stance on the matter, declaring that the government "will not spare anyone involved" in what he described as a deliberate wrongdoing that played with the sentiments of devotees. The government has announced plans to move the court seeking prosecution of all those involved in the case if necessary.
Given that this was a Supreme Court-monitored investigation, the state government is exploring legal options to bring all outstanding issues to the attention of the apex court. Legal opinions are currently being sought regarding whether to request further action from the SIT or to file a petition directly before the court.
The political dimension adds complexity to an already sensitive investigation. With allegations flying between ruling and opposition parties, the SIT finds itself navigating not just legal requirements but also intense political pressure from all sides. The case continues to evolve as new questions emerge about testing protocols, accused selection, and investigative thoroughness.
