The Andhra Pradesh High Court has pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for overreaching the Supreme Court’s directions in the matter related to the alleged use of adulterated ghee for preparing laddoos offered as prasadam at Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Harinath N reprimanded the CBI Director for nominating an officer as IO to conduct the probe, who was not part of the independent SIT constituted under the Apex Court’s directions.
The High Court recorded in its order that the SIT was initially set up by the Andhra Pradesh government in 2024. Later that year, the Apex Court reconstituted the team, comprising two CBI officers to be nominated by the CBI director, two AP police officials to be nominated by the state government and a senior official of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
The top court of the country had entrusted the probe to an independent SIT consisting of these five members. Respondent no. 10, J Venkat Rao, was not specifically named as an Officer representing the state in the independent SIT, noted the single-judge Bench.
In such circumstances, the CBI Director could not have nominated the respondent officer contrary to the Apex Court’s directions.
The High Court noted that the inclusion of 10th respondent as an investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT was not permissible and certainly overreached the Apex Court’s directions.
The October 28, 2024 order issued by the CBI Director telling the 10th respondent to conduct investigation was contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court in para 9 of the WP.(Civil).No.622 of 2024, it added.
It further rejected as unsustainable, the arguments made by CBI’s standing counsel that the CBI Director was empowered to nominate the 10th respondent as investigating officer.
The single-judge Bench observed that the verdicts relied on by the Standing Counsel could not be made applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case since the current matter involved religious sentiments of the crores of devotees. The cloud on the invaluable sacredness of the Laddu Prasadam was being investigated, it pointed out.
The order was passed on a petition filed by one Kaduru Chinnappanna, seeking directions for a free and fair investigation by the SIT.
The petitioner claimed that he received notices from the Investigating Officer J Venkat Rao–respondent no. 10, to appear.
He submitted that he was ‘forced, compelled and intimidated to record various scripted false statements’ before the SIT and the proceedings were recorded on a video camera. The petitioner further claimed that he was ‘forced’ to give statements to the dictates of Respondent no. 10.
Although respondent 10 was not a member of the SIT, he had been repeatedly issuing notice(s) to the petitioner calling upon him to appear as a witness before the SIT office at Tirupati for the purpose of investigation.
The petitioner further contended that his statements were re-recorded 7-8 times and the earlier recorded statements were deleted after recording the fresh statement. It was argued that
Noting that respondent no.10 was not a member of the SIT which was constituted in pursuance of the Supreme Court directions, the petitioner questioned whether the respondent 10 could assume the role of IO even though he was not officially named as a member of the SIT on behalf of the state government.
In 2024, the Apex Court had criticised AP Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations on the issue.
In its prima facie view, the top court of the country observed that it was not appropriate on part of a high constitutional functionary to go in public to make a statement that could affect the sentiment of crores of people, more so when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddoos was underway.