ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

Monday, January 12, 2026

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

GIST

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

HEAD NOTES

Constitution of India — Article 226

Writ of mandamus — Free and fair investigation — Enforcement of Supreme Court directions.
High Court can issue a writ directing compliance with and faithful implementation of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to constitution and functioning of a Special Investigation Team.
(Paras 1, 28)

Criminal Investigation — Special Investigation Team (SIT)

SIT constituted by Supreme Court — Composition final and binding.
When the Supreme Court substitutes a State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT consisting of specifically nominated members, the investigation must be conducted only by such members and under the supervision stipulated by the Supreme Court.
(Paras 5–7, 19–24)

Criminal Investigation — Jurisdiction of Investigating Officer

Officer not named as SIT member — No authority to investigate.
An officer who is not a member of the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer or issue notices under the BNSS. Any such assumption of authority is without jurisdiction.
(Paras 12–14, 24–27)

Supreme Court Directions — Binding nature

Director, CBI — No power to alter or enlarge SIT composition.
The Director, CBI is bound by the directions of the Supreme Court and cannot, by administrative orders, permit an officer outside the reconstituted SIT to conduct investigation, as it would amount to overreaching the Supreme Court’s order.
(Paras 19–22, 25–27)

Investigation touching religious sentiments

Heightened standard of independence and neutrality.
Where investigation concerns matters affecting religious sentiments of crores of devotees, strict adherence to the structure and safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court is mandatory.
(Paras 21, 25)

Irregular investigation — Cure doctrine

Illegality curable — Not applicable where Supreme Court directions violated.
Principles permitting curing of defects in investigation do not apply where investigation itself is conducted in violation of explicit directions of the Supreme Court.
(Paras 25–27)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court substitutes a State-appointed SIT with an independent SIT of specifically identified members and mandates that investigation be carried out under a defined supervisory framework, no authority—including the Director, CBI—can enlarge, alter, or bypass that composition. Any investigation conducted by an officer not forming part of the reconstituted SIT is without jurisdiction, constitutes overreach of the Supreme Court’s order, and violates the requirement of a free and fair investigation, warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background and Genesis of the SIT

(Paras 3–7, 11)

Crime No.470 of 2024 concerned allegations relating to use of adulterated ghee in preparation of Tirumala Laddu Prasadam.
Statements by high constitutional functionaries and conflicting official versions led to public concern.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in WP(C) No.622 of 2024, substituted the State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT, comprising:
- Two officers nominated by the Director, CBI
- Two officers nominated by the State of Andhra Pradesh
- One senior officer of FSSAI
Investigation was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Director, CBI.

II. Grievance of the Petitioner

(Paras 2, 8–14)

Petitioner alleged coercion, intimidation, repeated re-recording of statements, and deletion of earlier recordings.
Notices were issued by the 10th respondent styling himself as “Investigating Officer” under Section 179 BNSS.
The 10th respondent was not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT.

III. Defence of Respondents

(Paras 14–17)

Respondents contended that the Director, CBI had acknowledged and permitted the 10th respondent to continue investigation.
Reliance placed on precedents where defects in investigation were held curable.

IV. Core Legal Issue

(Paras 13, 19)

Whether an officer not named in the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions can validly act as Investigating Officer based on administrative approval by the Director, CBI.

V. Findings of the Court

A. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directions

(Paras 19–22)

The Supreme Court consciously substituted the State SIT with an independent SIT to ensure credibility and public confidence.
The purpose and structure of such substitution could not be diluted by administrative interpretation.

B. Lack of Jurisdiction of the 10th Respondent

(Paras 24–27)

The 10th respondent was not included among the officers nominated to the reconstituted SIT.
Permitting him to investigate amounted to expanding the SIT beyond what was authorized by the Supreme Court.

C. Limits of Director, CBI’s Authority

(Paras 25–27)

Supervisory control does not include power to override or modify judicially fixed composition of the investigating body.
Proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Director, CBI were held to overreach the Supreme Court’s order.

D. Inapplicability of “Curable Defect” Doctrine