Tirupati laddu row | Supreme Court stays Andhra HC's order to form SIT to probe 'adulteration' case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which stated that the CBI had acted in violation of the apex court's directions while carrying out a probe into "adulterated ghee" being used to prepare 'prasadam' at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai also put on hold the high court's observation that the CBI director had violated the apex court’s directions by appointing an officer outside the SIT to probe the allegations.

Taking up a plea by the CBI director, the bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, said that there was nothing wrong with the SIT delegating the investigation to another officer, when the entire probe was being monitored by the CBI Director.

"If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that," the bench asked.

A counsel, representing the party who approached the High Court, contended before the bench that the apex court's order had specified that the SIT should comprise two officers from CBI, two officers from state police, and one senior officer from the Food Safety And Standards Authority Of India (FSSAI).

The counsel stressed that it is clear that nobody else can be included.

The bench, however, asked, "Whether the SIT has done away with the supervision of the investigation? It is only appointing an investigating officer, who is working within their control."

Another counsel representing the respondent argued that the said officer was assuming the role of an investigating officer and his client was being coerced to make confessions.

It was argued that the respondent was being harassed and threatened.

"You make a complaint," the bench told the counsel.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the CBI director held a meeting with the SIT and took stock of the situation. The bench was informed that this officer, the investigating officer (IO), was "only a record keeper" and the CBI director allowed him to continue.

Mehta submitted, "SIT is doing its work, the IO is only a record keeper…".

The bench asked the respondent to file their counter to the plea.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that the CBI director acted contrary to the apex court’s directions by allowing one J Venkat Rao, an officer not formally part of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), to carry out an investigation in the case. The High Court noted that Rao was not specifically named as one of the state's representatives in the SIT.

Citing the apex court's 2024 direction, the High Court said the SIT should have consisted of two CBI officers, to be nominated by the director, two officers of Andhra Pradesh Police, to be nominated by the state, and one senior official of the FSSAI. The High Court passed the order on a plea filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged harassment at the hands of Rao.