Tirupati Laddu Case | 'Can't SIT Delegate To Another Officer?' : Supreme Court Stays Andhra Pradesh High Court Order Against CBI Director

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 26) stayed the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which observed that the CBI Director had violated the Apex Court's directions by appointing an officer outside the SIT to probe allegations of adulterated ghee in Tirumala Tirupati Temple's prasadam.

The Court passed the interim order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the CBI Director against the High Court's order. During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria orally observed 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?" CJI Gavai asked at the outset.

The counsel for the respondent (the party who approached the High Court) submitted that the Supreme Court's order had specified that the SIT should comprise two officers from the CBI, two officers from the State Police, and one senior officer from the FSSAI. Therefore, no body else can be included, he concluded.

"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," CJI Gavai observed. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, also appearing for the respondent,  however argued that the said officer was assuming the role of an investigating officer and was coercing the respondent to make confessions.  When he claimed that he was being harassed and threatened, CJI said, "You make a complaint."

"Whether the SIT which was appointed by us has abdicated its jurisdiction?" CJI asked again. "It has appointed only one officer who will work under it,"

Rao claimed that this officer was a member of the erstwhile SIT formed by the State, which was substituted by the Supreme Court.  Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the CBI director held a meeting with the SIT, took stock of the situation and said that this particular officer, the IO(Investigating Officer) can continue. SG said that the said officer was "only a record keeper" and the CBI director allowed him to continue. CJI then pointed out that the Supreme Court's order forming the SIT had clarified that it was not casting any aspersions on the members of the previous SIT.

"SIT is doing its work, the IO is only a record keeper," SG said. "With due respect, IO is a record keeper?," the respondent's counsel exclaimed.

"Whether CBI or SIT has stopped functioning. Can't they delegate it to some of their subordinate officers?" CJI asked. The respondent was asked to file their counter to the plea.

Justice Harinath N of the High Court held that one of the SIT members, J Venkat Rao, was not specifically named as an Officer representing the State in the SIT constituted in pursuance of the Supreme Court's directions. Therefore, the High Court held that J Venkat Rao could not be included in the SIT and he cannot carry out the investigation.

The High Court was hearing a plea by one Kaduru Chinnappanna, who claimed that he received notices from the Investigating Officer J Venkat Rao to appear, wherein he was "compelled, forced and intimidated to record various scripted false statements" before the SIT and the proceedings were recorded by a Video Camera. It was submitted that the petitioner was "forced to give statements to the dictates" of Respondent no. 10. The plea sought a direction for free and fair investigation by the SIT.

He argued that although Rao was not a member of SIT, however, has been repeatedly issuing notice(s) to the petitioner calling upon him to appear as a witness before the SIT office at Tirupati for the purpose of investigation.

It was in 2024 that the Supreme Court constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations stating that the SIT will consist of two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) who will be nominated by the CBI director, two officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Police to be nominated by the State Government and a senior official of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

Case Details: THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. Versus KADURU CHINNAPPANNA AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 12653/2025