On Friday (September 26, 2025), the Supreme Court stayed the order in which an officer outside the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court (SIT) on behalf of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was described as a violation of the court orders to allow an officer out of the special investigation team (SIT) to investigate adulteration in ghee used in the famous Tirumala Tirupati temple’s ‘Laddu Prasadam’ (religious offerings) of the famous Tirumala Tirupati temple.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had said that while investigating the ‘adulterated ghee’ used to prepare Prasadam, the CBI director violated the Supreme Court’s instructions. Chief Justice B.K. R. Gawai and Justice K. The bench of Vinod Chandran said that the investigating agency is monitoring this investigation himself. In such a situation, if a particular officer is asked to cooperate in the investigation, then there is nothing wrong in it.
The defendant protested against the argument of Solicitor General
The bench asked, ‘If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, then what is wrong with this?’ Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said that the CBI director personally held a meeting with SIT members, reviewed the matter and allowed J Venkat Rao to remain the investigating officer in a limited role.
Mehta said, “He is just a record.” The defendant’s lawyer protested against this argument of the Solicitor General, saying, “Investigating officers are not just a record.” The defendant originally moved the High Court.
Violation of Supreme Court to allow other officers
His lawyer said that the structure of the SIT was clearly specified in the Supreme Court order and should be a senior officer of the CBI Director, two officers nominated by Andhra Pradesh Police and a senior officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He argued that allowing any other officer to participate in it is a violation of the Supreme Court order.
The Chief Justice asked, ‘Has the SIT finished the investigation monitoring? She is appointing only an investigating officer, who is working under her control. Stationing the order of the High Court, the bench asked the defendant to file a reply on the petition of the CBI Director.
Dispute started with an order of High Court
The dispute has arisen by an order of the High Court, stating that the CBI Director. By allowing an officer named Venkat Rao to investigate the case, he has worked contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court, as Rao is not formally part of the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Also read:- Custodial Death Case: Supreme Court strict stance, CBI and MP government on delay in arrest