Fri Sep 26 08:31:14 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the provided text, followed by its rewrite as a news article suitable for “The Hindu”:
**Summary:**
The Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that questioned the CBI Director’s decision to appoint an officer outside of a court-appointed SIT to investigate allegations of adulterated ghee used in prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The High Court believed this appointment violated previous Supreme Court directives regarding the SIT’s composition. The Supreme Court expressed concern about hindering the SIT’s work and questioned whether it had abandoned its duties.
**News Article:**
**Supreme Court Halts Order Faulting CBI Director in Tirupati Ghee Adulteration Probe**
**NEW DELHI, September 26, 2025:** The Supreme Court of India today stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that had criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director for appointing an officer outside the established Special Investigation Team (SIT) to assist in the investigation of alleged adulterated ghee used in the preparation of prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria questioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, asking if the court appointed SIT had abandoned its responsibilities, while also observing that the appointed officer would be working under their supervision.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, argued that the High Court’s ruling cast “unwarranted aspersions” on the SIT’s work and requested an urgent relief. He clarified that the officer in question was acting as a record-keeper and assisting the existing team.
The High Court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who claimed harassment and coercion by J. Venkat Rao, the officer appointed by the CBI Director. Mr. Chinnappanna alleged that Mr. Rao, unauthorized to conduct the probe, had pressured him to make false statements. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing Mr. Chinnappanna, argued that his client was coerced into giving incriminating statements.
However, the Supreme Court questioned the need for the High Court’s intervention, pointing out that the SIT had been empowered to delegate responsibilities and any complaints of coercion could be addressed through formal channels.
The Supreme Court established the independent SIT in 2024 to probe the allegations surrounding the purity of the Tirupati laddu, a prasadam revered by millions. The SIT comprises CBI and State police officers, as well as a representative from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The High Court’s July 10 order claimed that the appointment of Mr. Rao overreached the Supreme Court’s directions and threatened the sacredness of the laddu prasadam. The Supreme court is yet to make a final judgement on this case.
First Piper 