In the Tirupati Laddu Case Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the CBI Director had no authority to appoint the Investigating Officer in the SIT, calling it a violation of the Supreme Court’s binding directions and procedure.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) unlawfully appointed the investigating officer (IO) in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) looking into the Tirupati laddu case.
Justice Harinath N noted that the SIT, established by the Supreme Court, did not include J. Venkat Rao, yet the CBI Director later designated him as the IO.
The Court emphasized that the CBI Director lacked the authority to assign Rao to conduct the investigation, which contradicted the Supreme Court’s directives.
Also Read: [Tirupati Laddu Adulteration Row] Supreme Court Scheduled To Hear On Nov 22
The Court stated,
“Inclusion of 10th respondent as investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT is not permissible and would certainly overreach the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,”
Hence, The court instructed the CBI Director to ensure a transparent and impartial investigation by overseeing the inquiry to be carried out by the SIT reconstituted in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directives.
“For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent No.2 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
This decision came after an accused, Kaduru Chinnappanna, approached the High Court, seeking assurance of a fair inquiry into the matter.
Also Read: [Tirupati Laddu Case] “Matter Of Faith For Crores”: SC Orders Special Probe By SIT
The laddu controversy began in November 2024 when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu accused the previous Congress government of using animal fat in the production of Tirupati laddus.
Initially, the state government set up an SIT to investigate the claims, but the Supreme Court replaced it with a new SIT consisting of two CBI officers, two state government officers, and one officer from the FSSAI, all under the CBI Director’s supervision.
However, Chinnappanna contended that the CBI Director delegated the investigation to an officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police in Tirupati, who was part of the previous SIT formed by the state government.
Chinnappanna argued that this action violated the Supreme Court’s order. The High Court concurred with his argument and deemed Rao’s appointment as illegal.
Advocate Uday Kumar Vampugadavala represented the petitioner, while the CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutor PSP Suresh Kumar.
The state government was represented by a Government Pleader.
Case Title: Kaduru Chinnappanna v The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Read Attachment