The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to declare Tirupati city as a separate state or Union Territory. The PIL filed by Christian evangelist Dr KA Paul also sought a CBI probe into the Tirupati Laddu controversy and a time limit for the ongoing SIT probe.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan dismissed the plea after hearing Paul, who appeared and argued in person.
After the lab reports stated that ghee adulterated with animal fat was being used to make Tirupati’s prasadam laddus, the Supreme Court on 4 October constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations.
After that on 24 October, Dr KA Paul mentioned his petition before the bench of Justices Gavai, PK Mishra and Viswanathan. Paul filed the petition against Andhra Pradesh govt, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), CBI and others. The petition alleged violations of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and consequently, Articles 14 and 21.
Paul cited the example of Vatican City to create a separate state only for Tirupati City. He argued, “If a country can be created for 764 people, like Vatican City for a bunch of few Catholics, why can’t we create one for 30 lakh people,” which is the population of Tirupati.
Paul added that he filed the petition to protect the image of Andhra Pradesh in the country and to safeguard fundamental human rights. He argued, “hey made so many territories…29 states…why not a territory for 30 lakh people?”
However, the bench rejected the plea, saying that it can’t direct a separate State to be created for a particular temple. Responding to the demand of Tirupati state, Justice Gavai said, “Then we will have to have a separate state for Jagannath Puri, for Kedarnath, for Badrinath, for Madurai temple, for Rameshwaram temple…in Maharashtra, there will have to be 4-5…then Amritsar gurudwara…”.
After the court rejected the plea for a separate Tirupati state, petitioner Dr KA Paul urged that the court should fixing a time limit of 90 days or 6 months for the SIT to complete the probe. But the court refused to issue any such directive, and dismissed the petition.
