Tirupati laddu case: SC stays Andhra HC order against CBI Director, says SIT can delegate probe to external officer

The Supreme Court on Friday, September 26, stayed an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Tirupati laddu case. The High Court had held that the CBI Director acted in contravention of the apex court's directions.

The High Court's ruling pertained to the appointment of an officer outside the designated Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into allegations of adulterated ghee used in the prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple, reported Live Law.

The Supreme Court issued the interim stay in response to a Special Leave Petition filed by the CBI Director challenging the High Court's ruling.

During the proceedings, the SC bench—comprising the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, along with Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria—orally remarked that there was nothing improper in the SIT delegating the investigation to an external officer – J Venkat Rao, particularly since the inquiry remained under the active supervision of 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 had initially approached the High Court) contended that the Supreme Court's original directive explicitly mandated that the SIT should be constituted only by two officers from the CBI, two from the state police, and one senior officer from the FSSAI.

On this basis, he concluded that no other individual could be included in the investigation.

“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 said.

Subsequently, senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, also representing the respondent, argued that the officer in question was effectively assuming the role of an investigating officer and was coercing the respondent into making confessions.

When Rao claimed that his client was being subjected to harassment and threats, the CJI concisely advised, "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 Tushar Mehta submitted that the CBI director held a meeting with the SIT, reviewed the situation, and said that this particular officer, the IO (Investigating Officer), could continue.

The SG added that the officer was “only a record keeper,” and the CBI director allowed him to continue.