Tirupati laddu controversy is a dispute over the use of animal fat in the preparation of laddus, a prasad offered at the Tirupati Balaji Temple in Andhra Pradesh. The controversy began when a lab report claiming that ghee used to make laddus at the temple contained animal fat, including beef tallow and lard. Two cases (PIL) have already been filed before the court. That raised a fundamental question as to the role and responsibilities of the “State”. Because, the “State” plays a crucial role in protecting public belief, maintaining the sanctity of religious places, and ensuring the standards of food safety at religious places or temples. This role is guided by constitutional provisions and legal principles that uphold the fundamental rights of individuals to practice and profess their religion freely, while also safeguarding public health and safety.
Constitutional Scope:
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion including the right to manage religious affairs and maintain sacred practices, rituals, and standards at religious places.
Also, Article 26 of the Constitution which protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs, including the control and administration of religious institutions including the authority to maintain the sanctity and standards of food offerings at religious places.
In the Tirupati laddu dispute, adulterating prasad at a religious site affects the devotees’ religious beliefs, violating constitutional ethos. Adulterating prasad violates the religious rights of those who offer or consume it.
Scope of the other specific Act(s):
Food adulteration in religious sites is covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). Under the Act, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to oversee food safety and standards. The Act sets science-based food standards and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import to ensure safe and healthy food for human consumption.
The FSS Act, 2006 consolidates and repeals food safety and standards central acts and decrees, including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Section 57 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 punishes making or selling contaminated food with jail or a fine. The Act addresses basic food safety issues and specific food adulteration concerns, including those in religious places or temples.
Besides, there is the application and relevance of some of the earlier acts and orders in the context of the Tirupati laddu controversy or food adulteration at religious places:
1. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This Act focused on preventing the adulteration of food items to ensure food safety and public health. While it has been repealed by the FSS Act, the provisions related to food adulteration, testing of food samples, and penalties for adulteration continue to be relevant under the FSS Act’s framework.
2. Fruit Products Order, 1955: As promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, this order regulated the processing and sale of fruit products to ensure their quality and safety. The standards established under this order would align with the broader food safety standards set by the FSS Act and would be applicable to fruit-based offerings or prasad at religious places.
3. Meat Food Products Order, 1973 under the Essential Commodities Act of 1955: This edict deals with the regulation and standards for meat products to ensure their safety and quality. Any religious meat offerings or prasad would be covered by the FSS Act under this order.
The FSS Act, 2006, replaced the aforementioned (s), but their standards, regulations, and principles continue to guide food safety enforcement and regulation, including at religious places.
The state is vital in defending public belief, maintaining religious integrity, and assuring food safety at temples and holy locations. This duty is guided by constitutional and legal considerations that protect public health and safety while upholding religious freedom.
Application of IPC,1860 vis-à-vis BNS,2023:
Regarding the case of adulteration of prasad at a religious place, the case can be taken up under the provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to section 299 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 deals with acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs for which punishment imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Judicial Stance:
Indian Judiciary has underscored the broader legal principles concerning food safety and the sanctity of food offered at religious places. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Balwant Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab(1995), laid down that hurting religious sentiments intentionally amounts to an offense under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
In the case of Mohd. Mohsin v. Hari Shankar Jain (2005), the Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that food served at religious functions, including langars in gurdwaras, is safe and free from adulteration. The court stressed the need for maintaining hygiene and quality standards in preparing and distributing food at religious gatherings.
In another case Baba Pritam Dass v. State of Haryana (2007), the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with an instance of food adulteration at a religious fair where mahaprasad was being distributed. The court emphasized the responsibility of organizers to ensure the quality and purity of food served at religious events.
In the case of State of Punjab v. Jai Kishan (2003), the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated the need for strict enforcement of food safety regulations to prevent adulteration of food items offered at religious places as the case involved the same issue like Tirupati temple, the adulteration of prasad distributed at a temple in Punjab.
In conclusion, “Government is by the People, for the People and of the People” and the state executive, legislature, and judiciary help protect public belief, maintain religious sites, and ensure food safety at Indian temples and religious sites.
Through regulatory entities like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and state food safety departments, the state executive implements and enforces food safety standards to protect public health and prevent religious food adulteration. Through inspections, compliance monitoring, and enforcement, the state executive should ensure that religious facilities’ food offerings are safe for devotees.
Lawmakers in the state legislature pass food safety and standards rules, including those governing religious food preparation and distribution. Legislation must comply with constitutional principles of religious freedom and public health and safety.
In cases of religious food adulteration, the judiciary interprets and defends food safety, religious freedom, and belief protection statutes as the defender of the Constitution. The judiciary upholds religious integrity and protects individual rights and beliefs through landmark judgements and precedents.
The state government, legislature, and judiciary must work together to preserve religious traditions and beliefs while protecting public health and safety at religious sites. The state machinery promotes religious freedom without sacrificing health by preserving constitutional ideals, enforcing food safety laws, and honouring religious practices.
Dr. Mainan Ray, Associate Professor of Law, Amity Law School, Kolkata
