Andhra Pradesh: In a major legal development, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared that the CBI Director violated a Supreme Court order by appointing an unauthorized officer to lead the probe in the sensational Tirupati Laddu case.
The controversy dates back to November 2024, when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu accused the previous Congress-led state government of using animal fat in the preparation of the sacred Tirupati laddus.
These laddus, distributed daily at the world-famous Tirupati Temple, are not only a religious offering but a symbol of cultural sanctity. The allegations triggered massive public outrage and prompted a high-level investigation.
Supreme Court-Ordered SIT
Initially, the state government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the issue. However, due to concerns of bias, the Supreme Court intervened and reconstituted the SIT. The Court ordered that the new SIT must include:
- 2 officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- 2 officers from the Andhra Pradesh State Government
- 1 officer from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)
Importantly, the SIT was to operate under the direct supervision of the CBI Director, not a delegated officer.
Illegal Nomination of Investigation Officer
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions, the CBI Director nominated J Venkat Rao, Additional Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, as the Investigating Officer (IO). Rao was previously part of the state-formed SIT.
In the writ petition filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna — one of the accused in the case — it was argued that this nomination undermined the integrity of the investigation and violated the apex court’s order.
High Court Slams CBI Director
Justice Harinath N of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of Chinnappanna, calling the appointment of Rao a direct contradiction of the Supreme Court’s instructions.
He 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.”
The Court observed that only the CBI Director himself was empowered to supervise the probe, not assign it to another officer — especially one who had earlier been part of a potentially compromised state-level SIT.
Order for Free and Fair Probe
Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued clear instructions to the CBI:
“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 ruling reinforces judicial oversight in sensitive matters and emphasizes the need for procedural integrity.
Legal Representation
Advocate Uday Kumar Vampugadavala appeared for the petitioner, Chinnappanna. The CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutor PSP Suresh Kumar, while the State Government was represented by its Government Pleader.
Wider Implications
This ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the credibility of high-profile investigations in India. It reinforces the idea that court-mandated procedures must be followed to the letter, especially in cases involving religious and public trust.
The Court’s focus on judicial discipline and clarity of administrative roles reflects an ongoing effort to depoliticize law enforcement in India’s most sensitive cases.