Tirupati Laddu Case | CBI Director Violated SC Order, Nominated IO Who Wasn't Member Of SIT To Conduct Probe: AP High Court

In a case concerning allegations on use of adulterated ghee for preparing laddus offered as prasadam at Tirumala Tirupati Temple, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that CBI Director overreached Supreme Court's directions by nominating an officer as IO to conduct the probe who was not part of the SIT constituted under the apex court's directions.

Justice Harinath N in his order noted that SIT was first formed by the State last year which was reconstituted with the directions of the Supreme Court of India and the respondent no. 10 J Venkat Rao "is not specifically named as Officer representing the State in the SIT constituted in pursuance" of the apex court's directions.

The court referred to Supreme Court's orders in the matter and observed that it made clear that investigation should be conducted by an independent SIT consisting of the five members and the investigation was entrusted to the independent agency consisting of these members, adding that in such circumstances the "CBI could not have nominated the respondent officer contrary to the apex court's directions.

"The submissions of the learned standing counsel that the Director, CBI is empowered to nominate the 10th respondent as investigating officer is unsustainable. The judgments relied upon by the learned standing counsel cannot be made applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The case on hand involves religious sentiments of the crores of devotees and the cloud on the invaluable sacredness of the Laddu Prasadam is being investigated... Inclusion of 10th respondent as investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT is not permissible and would certainly over reach the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Director, CBI could not have directed the 10th respondent to conduct investigation. The said direction is contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the WP.(Civil).No.622 of 2024. The proceedings dated 28.10.2024 has been issued by the Director overreaching the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India".

The court was hearing a plea by one Kaduru Chinnappanna, who claimed that he received notices from the Investigating Officer J Venkat Rao–respondent no. 10, 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 respondent 10 is 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 submitted that petitioner's statements were re-recorded 7 to 8 times and the earlier recorded statements were deleted after recording the fresh statement. It was argued that respondent no.10 is not a member of the SIT which was constituted in pursuance of the Supreme Court directions. He questioned if the respondent 10 can assume the role of IO even though he is not officially named as a member of the SIT on behalf of the state government.

Notably the Supreme Court had last year criticized the state's Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations on the issue. The apex court in its prima facie view said that it was not "appropriate on the part of a high constitutional functionary to go in public to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people and when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddus was underway".

Thereafter the Supreme Court had 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).

Meanwhile the counsel for CBI submitted that the Director of CBI had acknowledged the investigation of the 10th respondent and directed him to continue investigation. It was submitted that the Director of CBI had called for a meeting of the SIT Officers constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the SIT Officers who substituted the SIT formed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It was argued that the meeting was called for entrusting the investigation to the newly constituted SIT which shall conduct investigation under the supervision of the Director of CBI. It was argued that the CBI Director after the meeting was satisfied with the line of investigation conducted by the 10th respondent and directing him to continue as investigating officer and conduct investigation in a professional manner under the SIT by taking necessary assistance from the CBI and also State Police.

It was also submitted that the SIT would require the assistance of men for preparation of notice(s), service of notice(s), etc., and in the capacity of the supervisory authority had taken the assistance of 10th respondent for investigation. It was submitted that such action cannot be found fault with as the decision has been taken by the Director, CBI only for the purpose of investigation.

The high court in its order said, "The very purpose of entrusting the investigation by substituting the SIT constituted by the state ought to have been unambiguously interpreted by the Director, CBI and ought to have named any one of the officer of the reconstituted SIT as an investigating officer".

The court thus allowed the plea directing CBI Director to conduct a free and fair investigation by supervising the investigation which is to be conducted by the SIT reconstituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court.

Case title: KADURU CHINNAPPANNA v/s STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for petitioner: Senior advocate C.Nageswara Rao and advocate Uday Kumar Vampugadavala

Counsel for CBI: Special Public Prosecutor for CBI PSP Suresh Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order