The Andhra Pradesh high court’s order on July 10, 2025, is a stark judicial reminder of the limits of investigative agencies – even premier ones like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – when they overstep Supreme Court mandates. The case revolves around a controversy that struck at the heart of Hindu religious sentiment: allegations of adulterated ghee in the sacred Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) laddus.

On September 18, 2024, Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu made a startling public statement: "Ghee containing animal fat was used in TTD laddus under the previous government." Given the TTD’s religious sanctity, this claim sent shockwaves through millions of devotees.

The Supreme Court swiftly intervened on September 30, 2024, observing: "It was inappropriate for a high constitutional functionary to publicly make such statements when an investigation was pending."

The court disbanded the state’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordered a new, independent SIT under CBI supervision, with representatives from: CBI (2 officers), Andhra Pradesh Police (2 officers) and FSSAI (1 officer).

Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive, the CBI Director allegedly bypassed the SIT structure, assigning investigative powers to an officer (J. Venkat Rao) not named in the SC-mandated team.

Kaduru Chinnappanna, a former Andhra Pradesh Bhavan Special Officer, petitioned the high court saying that he was forced to give scripted statements, which were recorded seven to eight times, to the 10th respondent (Venkat Rao) who was not part of the SC-approved SIT.

Justice Harinath N.’s 28-page order was unequivocal: "The CBI Director could not have directed the 10th respondent to conduct the investigation. Such a direction runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s orders."

The court quashed the proceedings led by the unauthorised officer and reaffirmed judicial supremacy saying, "Administrative convenience cannot override judicial commands." Significantly, it ordered a fresh probe strictly under the SC-mandated SIT.

Why this matters beyond Tirupati

The incident reinforces the fact that thte CBI cannot reinterpret the Supreme Court's orders for "logistical ease." The case also highlights the friction between the Union and state governments, with the CBI seemingly overriding state concerns.

This judgment is not limited to laddus or ghee – it’s about whether investigative agencies can defy the Supreme Court. By striking down the CBI’s overreach, the Andhra Pradesh high court has set a precedent: No agency, however powerful, is above judicial oversight.

Had the court allowed the CBI’s interpretation to prevail, it would have eroded trust in judicial mandates. Instead, it upheld a foundational principle: In India, the rule of law must prevail – not the rule of bureaucrats.

M. Sridhar Acharyulu is an academic and former Information Commissioner.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.