SC refuses to transfer ghee adulteration case out of A.P.

1. At a Glance

• On 5 November 2026 the Supreme Court refused a plea to move the trial in the Tirupati laddu ghee adulteration case out of Andhra Pradesh. [1]
• The case concerns an alleged ₹250 crore scam: 68 lakh kg of fake and synthetic ghee supplied to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) between 2019 and 2024. [1]
• Why it matters for UPSC: it brings together three things:
• Fair trial vs. a "politically charged" atmosphere, and the Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases (GS-II).
• Food safety regulation under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and FSSAI (GS-II and GS-III). [2]
• Central agencies (CBI, ED) investigating inside a State, which is a federalism question. [1]

2. Why in the News

• 5 November 2026: a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed a plea to transfer the trial outside Andhra Pradesh. [1]
• Who asked: Machindra Shantaram Lanke, a Maharashtra-based dairy businessman and a prime accused. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave argued for him. [1]
• His grounds:
• The atmosphere in the State was "politically charged". [1]

• The Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister were publicly making remarks that harmed a fair trial. [1]

• The Court's reasoning:

• Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the probe was with the CBI, a Central agency that is "not bothered by any commentary" from political figures in the State. [1]
• The CJI said: "We have silenced them all with our order. If something happens, you can come to us." This keeps the door open for the accused to return to the Court. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 2019–2024: the period in which fake and synthetic ghee was allegedly supplied to TTD. [1]
• 2006: the Food Safety and Standards Act was passed. It set up FSSAI under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to make science-based food standards. [2]
• 2011: the standard for ghee was placed in sub-regulation 2.1.8 of the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. [2]
• Investigation: the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) both investigated. The ED's role points to a money-laundering angle. Together they put the scam at ₹250 crore. [1]
• 2024 controversy and court-monitored probe: the allegations became public in September 2024. The Supreme Court then ordered an independent SIT with CBI, State police and FSSAI members. [background, not from the sources retrieved — verify]
• November 2026: the Supreme Court refused to transfer the trial. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The right to a fair trial comes from Article 21. Courts treat a "reasonable apprehension" of bias as grounds for transfer, but they have set a high bar for it. [static — verify]
• The Court relied on the fact that a Central agency (CBI) was handling the case. In its view, local political pressure therefore did not justify moving the trial. [1]
• Rather than transfer the case, the Court restrained public comment and allowed the accused to come back if problems arose. This is a lighter remedy than transfer. [1]

Governance / Ethics

• Senior constitutional office-holders (the CM and Deputy CM) were accused of commenting publicly on a case that is still in court. This raises a sub judice concern. [1]
• Ghee supply to the temple ran for about five years (2019–2024) without the fraud being caught. This points to weak procurement checks and quality testing at TTD. [1]

Social / Religious

• The Tirupati laddu prasadam has strong religious meaning. Adulterating it affects devotees' faith, and the issue has been politicised. [1]
• Ghee adulteration is a public health risk for consumers in general, beyond this one temple. [2]

Administrative / Federal

• The case involves several agencies at both levels: CBI and ED at the Centre, the State government, and FSSAI as regulator. [1][2]
• The accused is based in Maharashtra while the trial is in Andhra Pradesh, which reflects how food supply chains cross State borders. [1]

Economic

• ₹250 crore in alleged fraud. It also exposes the dairy sector to fake or synthetic ghee, which hurts honest producers. [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 5 November 2026: the Supreme Court dismissed the transfer plea. [1]
• The CBI–ED investigations have put the scam at ₹250 crore and 68 lakh kg of ghee. [1]
• The search results did not include other dated developments from whitelisted sources, such as chargesheet dates or arrests.

7. Prelims Hooks

• The ghee adulteration case involves the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Andhra Pradesh. [1]
• Alleged scam size: ₹250 crore. [1]
• Quantity of fake or synthetic ghee: 68 lakh kg. [1]
• Period of supply: 2019–2024. [1]
• The Supreme Court Bench was headed by CJI Surya Kant. [1]
• The probe is with the CBI, a Central agency, and the ED has also investigated. [1]
• FSSAI was set up under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [2]
• FSSAI falls under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, not the Ministry of Consumer Affairs or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. [2]
• The ghee standard sits in sub-regulation 2.1.8 of the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. [2]
• The Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases between States is in Section 446 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 406 of the CrPC). [verify]
• Article 139A deals mainly with transferring cases between High Courts, or to the Supreme Court, when they raise common questions of law. It is not the usual route for transferring a criminal trial. [verify]

8. Was the Accused's Fear Fair? The Case For and Against Moving the Trial

• The strongest argument for moving the trial
• The case did not start in a court. It started when Chief Minister Naidu publicly said that ghee supply rules had been loosened under the previous YSRCP government [8].
• The investigation is not purely Central. The SIT (Special Investigation Team) has five members: two from the CBI, two from Andhra Pradesh Police and one from FSSAI [6].
• So the Court's point that the CBI is "not bothered by" State politics covers only part of the team.

• Even the SIT's own working was disputed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court said the CBI Director broke the Supreme Court's directions by bringing in an officer from outside the SIT. The Supreme Court then stayed (paused) that High Court order [6].

• Why refusing the transfer is still the better answer

• A criminal trial is decided by a judge, not by the CM. Political speeches do not decide the verdict.
• Many witnesses and documents are in Andhra Pradesh, including TTD procurement officials and tender files [5]. Moving the trial would add years of delay and travel. Delay also hurts the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

• The Court did not ignore the risk. It used a lighter remedy: it stopped public comment and kept the door open for the accused to come back [1].

• What the accused gets right

• A gag order (an order stopping people from speaking publicly about a case) works only if someone enforces it.
• If ministers keep commenting, "come back to us" becomes the only protection. So the Court's own follow-up becomes the real test.

9. How a Blacklisted Dairy Kept Supplying Ghee for Years

• Banning the company did not ban the people behind it
• Bhole Baba Dairy of Roorkee was blacklisted (banned from future contracts) in 2022 [4].
• Its promoters allegedly kept supplying fake ghee to TTD by using other dairies' names [4].

• The ban was linked to the company's name, so the same supply continued under a different name.

• Nobody checked where the ghee was actually made

• AR Foods of Tamil Nadu won the tender at ₹320 per kg. It allegedly claimed the ghee came from Bhole Baba Dairy [6].
• The SIT reportedly found that Bhole Baba never bought a drop of milk or butter, yet supplied 68 lakh kg of ghee [4].

• Basic checks of supply records (how much milk went in compared with how much ghee came out) would have shown that this was impossible. Those checks were not done.

• The failure was inside TTD too, not only outside

• The SIT arrested RSSVR Subrahmanyam, a former General Manager (Procurement) at TTD who was in charge of buying ghee [5].

• This means the fraud may have passed through the buyer's own office. A tougher lab test alone would not have caught this.

• The tender rules themselves are disputed

• CM Naidu alleged that the experience required of suppliers was cut from three years to one year under the YSRCP government [8].
• YSRCP denies the charge. Treat this as an allegation, not a finding. But it shows how eligibility rules decide who is allowed to bid.

10. Why Food Testing Fails Long Before a Scandal Breaks

• Labs often declare food "safe" without running the required tests
• The CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General, India's official auditor) checked 4,895 reports from State food labs in 2017 [3].
• Mandatory pesticide tests were skipped in 99% of cases. Microbiology tests (checks for germs) were skipped in 96% [3].

• Most State labs lacked NABL accreditation (a national quality certificate for testing labs) and trained analysts [3].

• A temple warning that came years earlier

• In Kerala, the CAG found that labs testing Sabarimala temple offerings and their raw materials declared them safe without testing all required parameters [7].
• The same audit found that 88% of milk samples were passed without the full set of FSSAI tests [7].

• So the Tirupati problem was not new. Temple food was already flagged as a weak spot, and nobody acted on that nationally.

• The gap still exists

• A 2025 State audit found that none of the six food labs it checked ran all the prescribed tests, including for dairy samples [9].

• When samples are thrown away untested, nobody ever finds out whether the food was safe [9].

• Why this matters for the ghee case

• Fake ghee made from palm oil and chemicals can pass a simple test but fail a full one. Without full-parameter testing (running every test the standard requires), a five-year fraud can go unnoticed.

11. Who Should Fix What

• TTD and other big temple boards: check the source, not just the supplier
• Blacklist the promoters and their linked firms, not only the company name. This closes the gap Bhole Baba used [4].
• Ask suppliers to prove the milk or butter they bought, and match it against the ghee they deliver [4].

• Rotate procurement officers and audit their decisions, since a procurement head has been arrested [5].

• FSSAI and State food departments: make full testing the rule

• Act on the CAG's 2017 finding. Every lab that certifies food should hold NABL accreditation and run every mandatory test [3].
• It can be done: one audited State made all six of its labs NABL-accredited after the CAG flagged them [9].

• Large institutional buyers (temples, hostels, mid-day meal kitchens) should get random, full-parameter testing, as the Sabarimala audit shows [7].

• Courts and constitutional office-holders: keep comment out of live trials

• The Supreme Court has restrained public remarks [1]. Ministers should follow this voluntarily. Speeches about a case still in court (sub judice) put a fair trial at risk and give the accused grounds to ask for a transfer.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 68 lakh kg of fake ghee; ₹250 crore scam over 2019–2024 [1]; a dairy that bought no milk or butter still supplied it [4]
• Data: CAG found pesticide tests skipped in 99% and microbiology tests in 96% of 4,895 State lab reports [3]
• Report/Committee: CAG Report No. 37 of 2017, Performance Audit of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [3]; CAG Kerala Report No. 2 of 2022, which covered Sabarimala offerings [7]
• Law/Case: Article 21 (fair and speedy trial); Section 446 of the BNSS, 2023 (transfer of criminal cases, still to verify); Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [2]
• Comparison: Sabarimala (Kerala): temple offerings certified safe without full tests, flagged years before Tirupati [7]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II:
• Structure and functioning of the Judiciary.
• Statutory and regulatory bodies (FSSAI).

• Government policies and interventions; transparency and accountability.

• GS-III: Food processing and food safety; internal security / money laundering (ED).

• GS-IV: Integrity of public office-holders; probity in the management of religious institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The right to a fair trial must be balanced against the presumption that courts are independent of local pressure." Examine this with reference to the Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases. 2. Recent food adulteration scandals show regulatory gaps under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Critically analyse, and suggest reforms to strengthen FSSAI. 3. Discuss the ethical issues that arise when constitutional functionaries comment publicly on cases that are under trial.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• FSSAI structure and powers. This is the regulator for ghee and food standards.
• Section 446 of the BNSS / transfer of cases. This is the legal basis of the plea that was rejected.
• CBI: consent of States and the DSPE Act, 1946. These govern Central agency probes inside States.
• ED and the PMLA, 2002. This explains the money-laundering side of the scam.
• Sub judice and contempt of court. Relevant to the political remarks made during the trial.
• Articles 25–26 and State control of temples. Relevant to the TTD governance debate.
• Geographical Indications (the Tirupati laddu GI). Links to cultural and economic value.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Right to life and personal liberty (Polity): Article 21 includes the right to a fair and speedy trial, the basis of the transfer plea.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Polity): Its Section 446 gives the Supreme Court power to transfer criminal cases between States.
• Central Bureau of Investigation (Polity): The Court refused transfer because the CBI, a Central agency, is probing and is insulated from local politics.
• Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Polity): Explains the legal basis and State-consent rules under which the CBI investigates inside a State.
• Adulteration (Economy): The case is about fake and synthetic ghee mixed into temple laddu supply.
• Contempt of court (Polity): Helps explain the limits on public comment about a case under trial, as the Court restrained.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• FSSAI's ministry: it is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [2], not the Ministry of Consumer Affairs or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries.
• Article 139A vs. Section 446 of the BNSS: transfers of criminal trials go through the BNSS/CrPC provision. Article 139A is about common questions of law.
• Which agencies: the probe is with the CBI (with the ED on money laundering) [1], not a State police SIT alone.
• Dates: the supply period is 2019–2024, while the Supreme Court ruling came in November 2026. [1] Don't mix them up.
• Who filed the plea: the transfer was sought by an accused supplier, not by the State or the CBI. [1]