On September 30, during the hearing on the Tirumala Laddu adulteration issue, the Supreme Court questioned the AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu (CBN) regarding his earlier comments on the Laddu adulteration allegations during the NDA meeting. presented.
Also read – What did YSRCP want and what did the Supreme Court say?
This prompted an immediate reaction from YSRCP leaders and their social media channels, who heavily criticized the CBN and TDP. They created a narrative suggesting that the CBN’s comments were false and politically motivated. Meanwhile, the TDP has directed its leaders and spokespeople 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 came with the Supreme Court setting up a five-member SIT to look into the adulteration issue. The SIT will include two CBI officers, two AP police officers and one FSSAI officer.
Also read – HYDRAA is officially legalized
A CBI director has been appointed to oversee the investigation. This decision was taken to ensure transparency and an independent investigation into adulteration allegations. Immediately after this decision, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy held a press conference at his residence and expressed his opposition to the establishment of the SIT, said there was no need for further investigation, and that the CBN apologized to the public for his remarks. he demanded.
Jagan’s response came as part of an ongoing political battle, but the Supreme Court reiterated that an independent investigation is needed to determine whether there was any actual wrongdoing. The court also advised all political parties to avoid politicizing the issue.
Also read – Swiggy to be boycotted by Associated Press
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear message to refrain from politicizing the dispute, YSRCP appears to be maintaining its position. YSRCP social media continued to criticize the CBN, suggesting that the creation of the new SIT is a setback for the TDP-NDA alliance and a personal defeat for the CBN.
They argued that the Supreme Court’s establishment of a new SIT was a sign of distrust of the state’s previous SIT investigations. But in reality, the Supreme Court did not criticize the state government’s SIT or question the integrity of AP officials. The court simply considered that an independent investigation was necessary to clarify the issue.
The political fallout from the issue continues, with YSRCP using it to foment criticism of the CBN, while TDP insists that the creation of an independent SIT is not a sign of wrongdoing, but rather a step towards transparency. He maintains his defense by emphasizing.
you may like this
you may like this
