Supreme Court stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that had faulted the CBI Director for appointing an officer outside the court-constituted SIT to assist in the probe into allegations of “adulterated ghee” used in the preparation of prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
| Photo Credit: RAO GN
The Supreme Court on Friday (September 26, 2025) stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that had faulted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director for appointing an officer outside the court-constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) to assist in the probe into allegations of “adulterated ghee” used in the preparation of prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria observed, “Has the SIT appointed by us abdicated its responsibility? It has only appointed one investigating officer who will work under it.”
The top court passed the interim order while hearing a petition moved by the CBI Director challenging the High Court’s findings that the appointment was contrary to its directions.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, pressed for urgent relief and argued that the High Court had cast unwarranted aspersions on the SIT’s functioning. “The SIT is doing its job. The CBI Director convened a meeting to take stock of the situation. The investigating officer appointed is acting only as a record-keeper,” he submitted.
The High Court had held that the CBI Director “overreached” the Supreme Court’s directions by permitting J. Venkat Rao, an officer not formally named in the SIT, to take part in the investigation. Justice Harinath N noted that since the SIT’s composition had been explicitly determined by the apex court in 2024, any inclusion beyond the notified members was impermissible.
‘Statements given under duress’
The High Court’s ruling stemmed from a petition filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged harassment by Mr. Rao. He contended that he was repeatedly summoned to the SIT office in Tirupati and coerced into giving “scripted false statements,” even though Mr. Rao had no lawful authority to conduct the probe. On this basis, he sought directions for the investigation to be carried out solely by the duly constituted SIT.
Appearing for Mr. Chinnappanna, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao submitted, “The only reason we are before this Court is because he was coerced into making incriminating statements.”
However, the Chief Justice pointed out that when the Supreme Court had constituted the SIT, it had expressly clarified that no aspersions were being cast on members of the earlier SIT formed by the State government. “Has the CBI or the SIT stopped functioning? Can’t they delegate work to some of their subordinate officers?” he asked. He further observed that if Mr. Chinnappanna believed his statements had been recorded without consent, he could always seek redress by filing a formal complaint.
In 2024, the Supreme Court constituted an independent SIT to investigate the allegations concerning the sanctity of the Tirupati laddu, revered as sacred prasadam by millions of devotees. The SIT was to comprise two CBI officers nominated by the CBI 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).
However, in its July 10 order, the High Court found the appointment of Mr. Rao in breach of these directions. “The case on hand involves religious sentiments of crores of devotees, and the cloud on the invaluable sacredness of the laddu prasadam is being investigated… Inclusion of the 10th respondent [Mr. Rao] as investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT is not permissible and would certainly overreach the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” it ruled.
Published – September 26, 2025 02:01 pm IST
