ED seizes ₹130 crore in Tirumala ghee adulteration probe: fictitious transactions masked supply of substandard ghee

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) Hyderabad provisionally attached movable and immovable assets worth ₹129.85 crore on 14 October 2026 from dairy firms and related persons accused of supplying adulterated ghee to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the trust that manages one of India's most visited Hindu temples. The action was taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The firms named in the attachment order are Bhole Baba Oroganic Dairymilk Pvt Ltd and Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialities Pvt Ltd, along with their promoters Vipin Jain and Pomil Jain and family members. Also named are Sukriti Foods Pvt Ltd, its promoter Kailash Chand Mangla, and related persons. The probe stems from an FIR registered at Tirupati East Police Station alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption in the supply of ghee used to prepare the sacred Lord Venkateswara Laddu Prasadam.

What the ED says happened

According to the ED's findings as reported by Telangana Today, adulterated ghee worth ₹234.5 crore was allegedly supplied to TTD, both directly and through front dairies. The product was reportedly manufactured by blending refined palm oil, palm kernel oil and palmolein with chemicals, then invoiced as edible oils to obscure the nature of the transaction.

The financial trail the ED uncovered is worth understanding in detail because it shows how food fraud at this scale is sustained. Investigators found fictitious milk and ghee purchase records, bogus palm oil sales, and false by-product transactions, all designed to make the operations look like legitimate dairy businesses. Payments against these fictitious purchases were allegedly returned in cash through hawala channels, which then financed further fraudulent transactions and paid commissions to intermediaries.

This is not a case of a supplier cutting corners on quality. The ED's allegation is that the entire paper trail of a dairy operation was fabricated to launder the proceeds of selling adulterated fat as pure ghee.

The ED had earlier searched 16 premises across six states and seized or frozen cash and bank balances worth ₹2.7 crore. Vipin Jain and Kailash Chand Mangla have since been arrested. The latest attachment brings the total value of assets attached, seized or frozen to ₹132.55 crore. The investigation is ongoing and no court has yet returned a verdict on the charges.

Why this matters for anyone buying ghee

Pure ghee is defined under FSSAI Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 as the clarified fat derived solely from milk or cream or butter, with no added vegetable fat permitted. Palm oil, palm kernel oil and palmolein are vegetable fats. Their presence in a product sold or invoiced as ghee is adulteration, not a labelling technicality.

The TTD case is particularly pointed because the ghee in question was destined for a religious offering consumed by millions of pilgrims annually. But the same supply chains that serve institutional buyers also serve retail shelves. Loose ghee sold in local markets and even some branded tins have repeatedly failed FSSAI surveillance tests in past years, though FSSAI has not publicly linked any retail brand to this specific case.

For home cooks and clean-label buyers, the practical problem is that palm oil adulteration in ghee is not detectable by smell, colour or texture alone. The Butyro-refractometer reading test and gas chromatography of fatty acid profiles are the standard detection methods, neither of which a consumer can run at home.

What buyers and cooks should do

The first step is to buy ghee that carries a visible FSSAI licence number and, where possible, an Agmark certification. Agmark-certified ghee is tested against IS 3508 standards, which include checks for vegetable fat adulteration. The Agmark portal lets you verify a certification number.

For brands, look for those that publish third-party lab test certificates on their websites or on request. A brand that cannot produce a fatty acid profile report for its ghee is not necessarily adulterated, but it cannot prove it is not.

If you buy from a local dairy or a loose-ghee supplier, ask whether they supply to institutional buyers and whether they hold an FSSAI central or state licence. Suppliers operating at the scale alleged in the TTD case are required to hold central FSSAI licences; a supplier who cannot show one is operating outside the regulatory framework.

For devotees and temple trusts, the TTD case has already prompted calls for mandatory third-party testing of all ghee consignments before acceptance. TTD itself reportedly tightened its procurement protocols after the original FIR. Whether other large temple trusts and institutional kitchens have followed is not publicly documented.

One thing the ED's action does not resolve is the question of how much adulterated product reached consumers before the fraud was detected. The ₹234.5 crore figure cited by the ED represents the alleged value of adulterated ghee supplied, not the volume recovered. Most of it was presumably consumed. That gap between detection and consumption is the real cost of food fraud at institutional scale, and no asset attachment reverses it.