Supreme Court refuses to transfer Tirupathi ghee adulteration case out of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court refused to transfer the Tirupathi laddu ghee-adulteration trial outside Andhra Pradesh. The plea was filed by Machindra Shantaram Lanke, a Maharashtra-based dairy businessman and prime accused. The decision means the trial will not be shifted merely because the accused claimed that the State’s political atmosphere could undermine fairness.

Lanke’s lawyer, Siddharth Dave, argued that the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister had made public remarks derogatory to a fair trial. The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, focused on the fact that the investigation was being handled by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the CBI was not concerned by political comments.

The Court dismissed the transfer plea. Chief Justice Kant said the Court’s order had silenced political voices and invited the accused to return if something happened. The ruling keeps the proceedings in Andhra Pradesh while leaving open the possibility of future intervention if a concrete problem arises.

Machindra Shantaram Lanke argued that the trial should move because he believed political pressure in Andhra Pradesh could affect the fairness of proceedings. He is described as a Maharashtra-based dairy businessman and a prime accused in the case. His lawyer said the atmosphere inside the State was “politically charged.”

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave specifically referred to public remarks by the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. He argued that these comments were derogatory to a fair trial. The concern was not simply where the alleged offence occurred. It was whether political commentary could influence the courtroom environment, public opinion, or the treatment of the accused.

The Supreme Court did not accept that argument as sufficient for a transfer. Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the CBI was conducting the probe and was not bothered by political commentary. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court had silenced political voices through its order and told the accused to return if something actually happened.

The investigations described a large alleged fraud involving both money and food supplies. The CBI and Directorate of Enforcement investigations revealed a ₹250 crore scam. That figure indicates the alleged financial scale of the operation, while the quantity shows how extensively the disputed product was supplied.

According to the article, 68 lakh kilograms of fake and synthetic ghee were supplied to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The deliveries took place between 2019 and 2024. Together, these figures show a sustained alleged supply operation rather than a single disputed shipment. The recipient was the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, commonly identified in the article as TTD.

The figures are allegations revealed through the investigations, not a final trial verdict. The Supreme Court’s decision concerned the location of the trial, not whether the scam was proved. The case will remain in Andhra Pradesh after the Court refused to transfer it, while the CBI and ED investigations form the stated basis for the alleged scale.

The Central Bureau of Investigation, or CBI, is India’s central investigative agency for major criminal cases. It can investigate allegations such as fraud, conspiracy, and corruption when it has legal authority to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the probe was with the CBI, which the Bench said was not affected by political comments in Andhra Pradesh.

The Directorate of Enforcement, or ED, is a central agency that investigates suspected financial crimes and money-laundering matters under applicable law. The article does not describe every ED step. It states that the CBI and ED investigations revealed an alleged ₹250 crore scam involving fake and synthetic ghee supplied to TTD.

Their roles therefore overlap in the broader case but are not identical. The CBI’s investigation is central to the criminal probe mentioned by the Court. The ED’s involvement brings attention to the alleged financial dimension. The article gives no final finding of guilt, and the trial remains pending in Andhra Pradesh.

Transferring a criminal trial to another State means moving the proceeding to a court outside the State where it is currently being heard or would normally be heard. The receiving court would then handle the trial under the applicable criminal procedure. Such a request is an exceptional remedy, not a routine change of venue.

A court might order a transfer if the accused can show a real risk that local hostility, political influence, witness intimidation, or other conditions could prevent an impartial and fair trial. The aim is to protect the integrity of the proceeding, not to give either side a tactical advantage. A concern must generally be more than a general fear or public controversy.

Here, Siddharth Dave proposed a neighbouring State because he called the case politically charged and emotive. The Supreme Court rejected the plea. It relied partly on the CBI’s role and said political commentary did not affect that agency. The trial therefore remains in Andhra Pradesh unless later events justify intervention.

When political leaders comment on an ongoing criminal case, their statements can create pressure around the proceedings. They may shape public opinion before evidence is tested in court. That can threaten confidence in the accused’s presumption of innocence and make witnesses, lawyers, or judges appear influenced, even when the legal process remains independent.

The accused businessman’s lawyer said the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister made remarks derogatory to a fair trial. That argument focused on the possible effect of political speech in a case described as politically charged. A court assessing such a claim would consider whether the comments create a concrete risk to impartial justice, rather than treating every public statement as automatic proof of unfairness.

The Supreme Court rejected the transfer request. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the CBI was not bothered by commentary from political functionaries. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court had silenced them with its order and told the accused to return if something happened, preserving a route for later action.

The case is especially emotive because it concerns supplies made to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, or TTD, a prominent institution named at the centre of the dispute. The alleged product was fake and synthetic ghee, and the allegations therefore touch the quality and integrity of supplies received by TTD. The article gives no further description of the institution’s functions.

The scale adds to the sensitivity. Investigators said 68 lakh kilograms of the disputed ghee were supplied between 2019 and 2024. They also revealed an alleged ₹250 crore scam. These are not allegations about an isolated delivery. They describe a multi-year supply arrangement involving a major institution in Andhra Pradesh.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave called the case an emotive issue and sought a transfer to a neighbouring State. The Supreme Court nevertheless kept the trial in Andhra Pradesh. Its decision rested on the CBI’s role and its view that political commentary did not affect the central probe.