SC stays Andhra HC order faulting CBI chief over probe into Tirupati laddu row
The Supreme Court stayed an Andhra Pradesh high court order criticizing the CBI director for allowing an unappointed officer to join an SIT probe into TTD laddu ghee adulteration.
The Supreme Court on Friday put on hold an order of the Andhra Pradesh high court that had faulted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director for permitting an officer, not formally part of a court-constituted special investigation team (SIT), to participate in the probe into allegations of adulterated ghee used in the preparation of the famed Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) laddu prasadam.
A bench headed by chief justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, and also comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, passed the interim order while hearing a plea by the CBI director challenging the findings of the high court.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central agency, pressed for urgent relief, arguing that the observations of the high court not only undermined the ongoing investigation but also cast unwarranted aspersions on the functioning of the SIT. He added that the officer appointed was only for the purpose of record-keeping while the SIT’s work was underway.
The controversy arises from a recent order of the high court, which had scrutinised the role of J Venkat Rao. Pointing out that Rao was never formally named as one of the SIT members, the high court concluded that he could not assume investigative powers in the matter. It held that the CBI director, by allowing Rao’s involvement, had deviated from the express mandate of the Supreme Court, which had itself crafted the SIT’s composition in 2024.
The high court’s ruling came on a plea by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged that he had been summoned by Rao to the SIT office in Tirupati and coerced into recording false statements under duress. Chinnappanna claimed that the proceedings were videotaped and that he was compelled to act under Rao’s dictates, despite the officer having no lawful authority to investigate the case. On these grounds, he sought directions to secure a free and fair probe by the duly notified SIT.
{{/usCountry}}The high court’s ruling came on a plea by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged that he had been summoned by Rao to the SIT office in Tirupati and coerced into recording false statements under duress. Chinnappanna claimed that the proceedings were videotaped and that he was compelled to act under Rao’s dictates, despite the officer having no lawful authority to investigate the case. On these grounds, he sought directions to secure a free and fair probe by the duly notified SIT.
{{/usCountry}}In its 2024 directions, the Supreme Court had formed the SIT to allay concerns over impartiality in a matter touching upon the sanctity of the Tirupati laddu, revered as sacred prasadam by millions of devotees. The case, rooted in both religious sentiment and public trust, has already attracted considerable attention. The apex court had stipulated that the team must comprise two CBI officers nominated by the agency’s director, two state police officers nominated by the Andhra Pradesh government, and one senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
{{/usCountry}}In its 2024 directions, the Supreme Court had formed the SIT to allay concerns over impartiality in a matter touching upon the sanctity of the Tirupati laddu, revered as sacred prasadam by millions of devotees. The case, rooted in both religious sentiment and public trust, has already attracted considerable attention. The apex court had stipulated that the team must comprise two CBI officers nominated by the agency’s director, two state police officers nominated by the Andhra Pradesh government, and one senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
{{/usCountry}}The Andhra Pradesh high court, however, found that the participation of Rao, who did not figure in the notified list, amounted to a breach of this structure. It declared that Rao had no authority to issue summons or conduct any independent investigation. The court went further, holding that the CBI director had acted contrary to the top court’s directions by allowing Rao’s involvement.
While not commenting in detail on the merits, the bench stayed the operation of the high court order, giving relief to the CBI director.
