Former TTD board chairman and YSRCP leader YV Subba Reddy and Chinnappanna have faced a setback in the Supreme Court in the Tirumala laddu adulteration case. It may be recalled that the CBI is investigating the allegations of using adulterated ghee in the preparation of laddus at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) during the YSRCP regime.
The matter has come under discussion again after the Supreme Court recently stayed the orders given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case. Earlier, a three-judge bench headed by the CJI had issued notices to Chinnappanna. With this, Chinnappanna filed a petition in the High Court alleging that someone other than the one mentioned by the Supreme Court was taken in the SIT.
Chinnappanna stated in the High Court that a person who was not in the SIT wanted to appear for the investigation. On July 10 this year, a single judge of the High Court gave a verdict on Chinnappanna’s petition. The High Court reminded that as per the Supreme Court orders, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the CBI should have two CBI officers, two state police officers and a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) officer.
However, the High Court held that an officer named J Venkata Rao, despite not being officially part of the SIT, played a key role in the investigation as per the orders of the CBI Director. The High Court commented that the CBI Director violated the orders of the Supreme Court. The CBI approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court orders.
A three-judge bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case on Friday. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the CBI. He explained that the SIT is entirely under the supervision of the CBI Director.
“What is wrong if the officers of the SIT appoint someone for the investigation? The supervision of the investigation is in the hands of the CBI Director,” the Supreme Court bench said. The lawyer representing Chinnappanna said, “Venkata Rao is playing the role of an investigating officer and pressuring his client.”
On this, the CJI suggested, “If you get any pressure or threats, complain.” The Supreme Court stayed the orders given by the High Court and issued notices to Chinnappanna. It concluded that the SIT investigation can continue as usual until the next hearing. This gave temporary relief to the CBI.