The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up Andhra Pradesh chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu over his public and unsubstantiated allegation of adulteration of Tirupati laddoos, observing: “We should keep God away from politics.”

The court remined Naidu that a high constitutional authority ought not to have made such a statement without proper verification of facts and when the matter was being probed by a government-appointed special investigation team.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan indicated that the court may transfer the probe into the allegation of adulteration during the tenure of the previous Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy government to another agency in view of Naidu’s statement as it might prejudice the SIT investigation.

“We would like you to examine as to whether the investigation should be conducted by this SIT, or in the background of such statement... which affects the sentiments of people.... We should keep God away from politics,” Justice Gavai, heading the bench, observed while asking solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to assist the court.

The court was dealing with a batch of PILs seeking an independent probe into Naidu's September 18 allegation that beef fat, pig fat and fish oil were used in the production of Tirupati laddoos during the previous government.

Justice Viswanathan observed: “Prima facie, there is nothing to show at this stage that the ghee used in the sample was used for laddoos.”

“Till the outcome (of the SIT probe), what is the necessity to go to the press? Unless you were sure, how did you go public with that? What was the purpose of the investigation?” the bench asked senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who said the state had ordered the probe following complaints about the quality of the laddoos.

“Was the ghee which was not found in conformity, was it used for the prasadam?” Justice Gavai asked, to which Luthra responded: “We are investigating.” The bench shot back: “Then what was the need to go to press immediately? You need to respect religious sentiments. You may say tenders have been wrongly awarded... but to say that this (adulterated) ghee has been used... where is that proof?”

The bench asked Luthra to read out portions of the lab report which contained the disclaimer that “a false positive can be obtained... method is not applicable”. This suggests the report of the lab may not be fully accurate.

“Does not prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? Normal things, we take a second opinion. No proof that the said ghee was used,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

Mehta interjected to say: “This is a matter of faith. If this ghee was used, it's unacceptable. It has to be seen who was responsible. Ultimately, this needs to be examined.”

Justice Gavai asked: “Pending enquiry, such statements made by such high constitutional functionaries... what effect would the SIT have?”