The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday stayed an order that faulted the CBI Director for allowing an officer not from the court-appointed SIT to probe into the adulteration of ghee used in the famed Tirumala Tirupati Temple’s laddu prasadam (religious offerings).
The Andhra Pradesh High court said the CBI Director acted in violation of the top court’s directions while carrying out a probe into “adulterated ghee” being used to prepare prasadam.
Granting relief on the plea of the CBI director, a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed there was nothing wrong if a particular officer was asked to assist in the probe when the head of the probe agency himself was monitoring the investigation. “If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that,” the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, said the Director personally convened a meeting with SIT members, reviewed the case, and permitted Rao to continue as an investigating officer, albeit in a limited role. “He is only a record keeper,” the law officer said.
The submission was opposed by the counsel for the respondent who said, “IO is not a record keeper.”
The counsel for the respondent, who originally moved the High Court, said the top court’s order had explicitly specified the SIT’s composition and it ought to have two CBI officers nominated by the CBI Director; two officers nominated by the Andhra Pradesh Police and a senior officer from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He argued that allowing any other officer to participate violated the top court’s mandate.
“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,” the CJI asked. Staying the order, the bench asked the respondent to file a reply to the plea of the CBI director. When the lawyer for the respondent said the officer was assuming the role of an investigating officer and was coercing the respondent to make confessions, the CJI said, “You make a complaint.”
The CJI asked whether the SIT appointed by the top court abdicated its jurisdiction. The controversy stems from an order of the High Court which held that the CBI Director acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions by allowing one J Venkat Rao, an officer not formally part of the special investigation team (SIT), to carry out investigation in the case.
The High Court referred to the top court’s direction of 2024 and said it ordered the formation of an independent SIT comprising, 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 Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.
It also noted Venkat Rao was not specifically named as one of the State’s representatives in the SIT.
Consequently, the HC held that he could not assume investigative powers in the matter. The order came on a plea filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who alleged harassment at the hands of Rao. According to Chinnappanna, he was repeatedly summoned by Rao, compelled to appear before the SIT office at Tirupati, and pressured into giving “scripted false statements”. Chinnappanna claimed these proceedings were videographed and his statements were dictated under duress.
