In a significant decision on Friday, September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a stay on an Andhra Pradesh High Court order. The High Court had previously criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director for appointing an officer who was not part of the court-mandated Special Investigation Team (SIT). This officer was assisting in the ongoing probe into allegations of ‘adulterated ghee’ being used for the sacred prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria questioned the High Court’s stance, remarking, “Has the SIT appointed by us abdicated its responsibility? It has only appointed one investigating officer who will work under it.”
This interim order from the Supreme Court came during the hearing of a petition filed by the CBI Director, who challenged the High Court’s finding that his appointment of the officer violated its previous directives.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, urged for immediate relief, asserting that the High Court had unfairly questioned the SIT’s operations. He explained that “The SIT is diligently performing its duties, and the CBI Director merely convened a meeting to assess the situation. The appointed investigating officer’s role is solely that of a record-keeper.”
The High Court had previously ruled that the CBI Director “overstepped” the Supreme Court’s directives by allowing J. Venkat Rao, an officer not officially listed in the SIT, to participate in the investigation. Justice Harinath N emphasized that because the Supreme Court had explicitly defined the SIT’s composition in 2024, any additional members beyond those designated were not permitted.
Accusations of Statements Given Under Duress
This High Court decision originated from a petition by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who claimed harassment by Mr. Rao. Chinnappanna alleged that he was repeatedly called to the SIT office in Tirupati and forced to provide “scripted false statements,” despite Mr. Rao lacking official authority to conduct the investigation. Consequently, he requested that the probe be conducted exclusively by the officially formed SIT.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing Mr. Chinnappanna, stated to the court, “The sole reason for our presence here is that he was coerced into making incriminating statements.”
However, the Chief Justice highlighted that upon forming the SIT, the Supreme Court had explicitly stated that it was not casting any doubt on the members of the State government’s previous SIT. He questioned, “Has the CBI or the SIT stopped functioning? Can’t they delegate work to some of their subordinate officers?” The Chief Justice added that if Mr. Chinnappanna felt his statements were recorded without consent, he could file a formal complaint for recourse.
Back in 2024, the Supreme Court had established an independent SIT to investigate claims regarding the sanctity of the Tirupati laddu, a sacred prasadam deeply revered by millions of devotees. This SIT was composed of two CBI officers chosen by the CBI Director, two state police officers nominated by the Andhra Pradesh government, and a senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
Nevertheless, the High Court, in its order dated July 10, found that Mr. Rao’s appointment violated these directives. The court stated, “The current case touches upon the religious sentiments of millions of devotees, and the investigation concerns the invaluable sacredness of the laddu prasadam… Therefore, including the 10th respondent [Mr. Rao] as an investigating officer beyond the reconstituted SIT’s specified members is impermissible and clearly oversteps the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s directions.”