New Delhi: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court on Friday granted an interim stay on an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that had held the CBI Director in contempt of the apex court’s previous directions regarding the ongoing investigation into alleged adulteration of ghee used for the famous Tirumala Tirupati Laddu prasadam.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, orally observed that there was nothing inherently improper in delegating investigative tasks to an external officer—so long as such delegation occurs within the overall supervision and control of the SIT (Special Investigation Team).
“If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that?” the Chief Justice asked during the hearing.
What the High Court Had Held
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier ruled that the CBI Director, by allowing J. Venkata Rao—who was not formally part of the SIT as constituted under the Supreme Court’s October 2024 order—to act in the investigation, had acted in violation of the court’s directive. The HC had further held that Rao did not have the authority to issue summons or take other investigative steps, as he was not among the named members.
The original petitioner in the High Court, K. Chinnappanna, an aide of senior YSRC leader and former TTD Chairman Y.V. Subba Reddy, had alleged that Rao had summoned him repeatedly, coerced him into recording statements (allegedly scripted), and recorded those proceedings on video.
That High Court order had essentially tried to restrain Rao from taking any further role in the inquiry, and had criticised the CBI Director’s decision to include him.
Supreme Court’s Position in the Stay Order
In its stay order, the Supreme Court made it clear that delegation of work within the Special Investigation Team was not unlawful. The bench observed that there was no impropriety if the SIT assigned certain tasks to another officer, provided he remained under its control and supervision, and ultimately under the authority of the CBI Director. The judges also questioned whether the act of delegation meant that the SIT had abdicated its responsibility, stressing that assigning duties did not necessarily imply a loss of control.
By granting the stay, the Court ensured that the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s directions would not come into effect until the appeal is fully heard. The bench underlined that the intervention was meant to preserve the status quo and prevent disruption of the ongoing investigation. It also accepted the argument that the High Court’s sharp observations could cast unwarranted aspersions on the SIT and hamper the progress of the probe.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the larger question of whether the High Court was correct in holding that officer J. Venkat Rao’s involvement violated the original apex court order. The stay remains an interim measure pending detailed hearing of the Special Leave Petition filed by CBI Director Praveen Sood.
During the arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, stressed that Rao’s role was largely administrative, describing him as a “record keeper,” and insisted that the SIT continued to function as directed.
