On September 30, during a hearing on the Tirumala laddu adulteration issue, the Supreme Court raised questions regarding AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s (CBN) earlier comments about the alleged adulteration of the laddu, which he made during an NDA meeting.
Also Read – What YSRCP Wanted and What Apex Court Said?
This sparked an immediate reaction from YSRCP leaders and their social media channels, where they heavily criticized CBN and TDP. They created a narrative suggesting that CBN’s comments were false and politically motivated. Meanwhile, TDP instructed its leaders and spokespersons to remain silent and avoid commenting on the Supreme Court’s remarks.
The case was heard by the Supreme Court on October 4, and a significant development followed when the Apex Court formed a 5-member SIT to investigate the issue of adulteration. The SIT would include two CBI officers, two police officers from AP, and one officer from FSSAI.
Also Read – HYDRAA Gets Legitimized Officially
The CBI director was appointed to oversee the investigation. This decision was made to ensure transparency and an independent probe into the alleged adulteration. Shortly after this decision, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy held a media briefing at his residence, where he expressed his opposition to the formation of the SIT, stating that there was no need for further investigation and demanding that CBN apologize to the people for his remarks.
Jagan’s response came as a part of the ongoing political battle, but the Supreme Court reiterated that an independent investigation was necessary to ascertain whether adulteration had actually occurred. The court also advised all political parties to avoid politicizing the issue.
Also Read – Swiggy To Be Boycotted In AP
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear message to refrain from politicizing the dispute, YSRCP seems to be maintaining its stance. The YSRCP social media continued to criticize CBN, suggesting that the formation of the new SIT was a setback for the TDP-NDA alliance and a personal defeat for CBN.
They argued that the Supreme Court’s formation of a new SIT was an indication that it did not trust the state’s previous SIT investigation. However, the reality is that the Supreme Court did not criticize the state government’s SIT or question the integrity of the AP officers. The court simply saw the need for an independent investigation to bring clarity to the issue.
The political fallout from this issue continues, with YSRCP using it to fuel criticism of CBN, while TDP maintains its defense, highlighting that the formation of the independent SIT is not a sign of wrongdoing but rather a step towards transparency.
You May Like This
You May Like This
