© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
Tirupati ladoo case: Supreme Court turns down Subramanian Swamy’s plea challenging Andhra Govt probe panel
The Supreme Court held that Andhra Pradesh’s probe into the Tirupati temple ladoo ghee issue will not overlap with the SIT’s criminal probe, allowing both processes to proceed under law.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao pointed out that Andhra Pradesh appointed a one-man committee, led by retired IAS officer Dinesh Kumar, to examine the CBI-led SIT's Self-Contained Note. (Credit: X/@ttd_seva)
The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a petition by former Member of Parliament Subramanian Swamy challenging the Andhra Pradesh Government’s decision to appoint a one‑member panel into the administrative lapses in the alleged use of adulterated ghee to prepare Tirupati temple ladoos, saying it would overlap with the probe by a Special Investigation Team.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Such an administrative inquiry, in our opinion, cannot be called as overlapping with the criminal proceedings which culminated in the filing of a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet. Also there being no conflict of interest or overlapping and the scope of investigation/enquiry, having been well demarcated, we are satisfied that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner…does not have sufficient foundation,” the bench said in its order.
“Let both processes continue strictly in accordance with law,” the nech added.
Appearing for Swamy, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao pointed out that Andhra Pradesh appointed a one-man committee, led by retired IAS officer Dinesh Kumar, to examine the CBI-led SIT’s Self-Contained Note, and to recommend suitable action against erring people. Rao added that this would undermine the SIT’s work.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the SIT probe was over and a chargesheet had been filed. Mehta added that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s manual provides that if some administrative lapses are found which are not connected with the criminal offence during or after the investigation, they should be intimated to the concerned authority, which is the state government in this case.
“So what the state is doing, it is taking care of those administrative lapses. There is no interference in the investigation,” he submitted.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, said, “Those are departmental proceedings”.
Story continues below this ad
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Andhra government, questioned the intent of the petitioner, and said he has been appearing for TTD in the past and “it’s completely malafide.” Luthra added, “This is not the first time they want to derail the departmental inquiry…complete malice”.
Declining to entertain the petition, CJI Kant said, “Let the state perform its own duty.”
Rao then urged the court to direct the CM not to make any public statements on the issue. He pointed out that even before the investigation began, the court had cautioned public functionaries against making statements. “Now, the same allegations are being reiterated. If the CM of a state uses a platform to make a statement, then that’s a problem,” the counsel said.
However, the bench said it will not make any observations at this stage, which will unnecessarily prejudice the inquiry.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
Live Blog