| Both Chandrababu Naidu and Jagan pushed narratives that went beyond the established facts |
(Ramesh Kandula)
In recent Andhra Pradesh politics, few episodes have intertwined faith, food safety, forensic science and political rivalry as starkly as the Tirupati laddu ghee case. Now that the CBI-led Special Investigation Team has filed its chargesheet, the dust has settled enough to ask a sober question: who was right—Chandrababu Naidu or Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy? The answer, inconvenient for both camps, lies somewhere in between. Let us begin with what the CBI has actually concluded. The chargesheet, filed in the Nellore court, establishes beyond doubt that the ghee supplied to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams between 2021 and 2024 was adulterated on a massive scale. About 68 lakh kilograms of what was passed off as ghee—valued at roughly ₹250 crore—was in fact “synthetic ghee”, with zero milk fat. It was a concoction made of palm oil, palmolein and chemical esters, designed to mimic the look, aroma and test parameters of genuine ghee. That, by any definition, is a serious fraud. Devotees were deceived, procurement systems failed, quality audits collapsed, and a sacred institution was compromised. What the CBI has not found is equally important. The final forensic findings do not establish the presence of animal fat. There is no confirmation of beef tallow, lard, or any other animal-derived substance. On this specific and highly sensitive point, the allegation that shook the country—that animal fat was mixed into Tirupati laddus—does not survive the scrutiny of the CBI’s investigation.
This is where Chandrababu Naidu’s role becomes contentious. As Chief Minister, he publicly stated that animal fats were present in the adulterated ghee, turning a case of food fraud into a national and emotional issue. The Supreme Court itself later remarked that such statements were made in haste and transferred the probe to a CBI-led team precisely to remove political colour. Was Naidu wrong? Technically, yes. The final report does not back his claim. Was he speaking without any basis? Not entirely. At the time the controversy erupted, preliminary reports from the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB)—a Government of India body—had flagged the presence of “foreign fats”, explicitly listing beef tallow and lard. The TTD’s own internal note, released then, cited the NDDB report and stated that samples contained vegetable and animal fat-based adulterants, including lard. On the strength of these documents, Naidu made his statement.
The problem is that preliminary screening reports are not final forensic conclusions. Experts point out that early-stage fatty acid profiling can throw up “lard-like” signatures even when hydrogenated vegetable oils and additives are used. Distinguishing animal fat from vegetable fat with legal certainty requires more detailed, confirmatory testing—exactly what the CBI later undertook. Once that deeper analysis was done, the animal-fat claim did not hold. This distinction matters. “Chemical esters” are a broad chemical class; all fats—vegetable or animal—are esters. Detecting esters does not, by itself, establish animal origin. Had animal fat been conclusively found, the CBI would have said so explicitly. It did not.So where does that leave Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and the YSR Congress Party? They are correct in saying that the CBI has not validated the animal fat allegation, and that Naidu’s statement caused political damage.
But they cannot escape the larger finding: the adulteration occurred during their tenure, on an industrial scale, involving suppliers, TTD officials, quality auditors and middlemen. Thirty-six accused have been named. No amount of semantic victory on “animal fat” can wash away that reality.In truth, both narratives overshot the facts. Naidu rushed to the most inflammatory conclusion on the basis of an early report, with political overtones. Jagan’s camp, meanwhile, has tried to turn the absence of animal fat into a clean chit, which it is not. Synthetic ghee with zero milk fat is not a minor lapse; it is a systemic failure. For devotees, the CBI’s finding offers relief: there is no proof that animal fat entered the laddus. And for politicians on both sides, it is a reminder that facts, especially forensic ones, have a way of catching up with slogans.
(Courtesy SUBSTACK.COM)
(Author is a senior journalist)