The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that criticised the CBI director for permitting an officer outside the court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) to assist in the probe into allegations of adulterated ghee being used in the famed Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam’s laddu prasadam.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran granted interim relief on the plea of the CBI director, holding there was no impropriety if the probe agency chief, while monitoring the case, allowed an officer to support the SIT.
“If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that?” the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, defended the director’s decision, submitting that he had personally convened a meeting with SIT members, reviewed the case, and permitted officer J. Venkat Rao to continue in a limited role. “He is only a record keeper,” Mehta said.
The submission was strongly opposed by the respondent’s counsel, who argued that an investigating officer (IO) cannot be reduced to a mere record keeper and alleged that Rao had in fact coerced the complainant into making forced confessions.
The controversy stemmed from a petition filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged harassment and duress by Rao, including videographed statements dictated under pressure. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had ruled that the CBI director’s action violated the Supreme Court’s earlier order of 2024, which mandated an independent SIT comprising:
- Two CBI officers nominated by the CBI director,
- Two officers from the Andhra Pradesh Police nominated by the state, and
- One senior officer from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
Since Rao was not formally nominated as a member of this SIT, the High Court concluded he could not exercise investigative powers.
The CJI, however, questioned whether the SIT had truly abdicated its jurisdiction by allowing Rao’s involvement, noting that appointing an officer to assist did not necessarily override SIT supervision. When the respondent’s counsel alleged coercion, the bench advised, “You make a complaint.”
Staying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to file a reply to the CBI director’s plea. The matter will now proceed on merits.
