Legislative Council stalled for second day as YSRCP insists on debating TTD ghee issue

Proceedings in the Legislative Council were stalled for the second consecutive day on Wednesday as the Opposition YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) pressed for an emergency discussion on supply of ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) by Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Limited, which it claimed had links with Heritage Foods.

The YSRCP members moved an adjournment motion seeking to suspend the listed business and take up the issue as a matter of urgent public importance. However, Council Chairman Koyye Moshenu Raju said that the the motion was not admitted.

Amid protests by the YSRCP members, the Council was adjourned for the day without transacting business, and questions listed were deemed to have been answered.

Speaking to the media later on the Assembly premises, Leader of the Opposition in the Council Botcha Satyanarayana alleged that the issue warranted a detailed debate. With the Supreme Court-appointed SIT clarifying the issue pertaining to the alleged adulteration of ghee supplied to the TTD, he sought a discussion on the procurement process, pricing and alleged link between Heritage Foods and Indapur Dairy.

He also criticised the Budget, stating that it did not adequately address the needs of farmers, youth, students and other sections, and urged the government to agree to a comprehensive debate in the House.

Reacting to the protests in the House, Finance Minister Payyavula Keshav and Home Minister Vangalapudi Anitha said the government was prepared for a discussion if the House functioned properly and if substantive evidence was presented. Mr. Keshav alleged that repeated adjournment motions were aimed at stalling the proceedings.

Government Chief Whip and MLC Panchumarthi Anuradha defended Heritage Foods, stating that the company had a 34-year record and operated in 15 States. She described Indapur Dairy as a co-manufacturing unit and said drawing direct ownership conclusions was inappropriate. She further maintained that raising unrelated company histories in the Council would not serve constructive debate.