Archive · 1 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Questions SIT Over Two-Year AP Liquor Probe
India’s Supreme Court looked at a case about an alleged illegal liquor transportation scam in Andhra Pradesh.
The court was unhappy with how the investigation team handled the case.
The judges asked what the team had discovered after investigating for about two years.
They also questioned why the team wanted a special warrant to bring Raj Kesireddy into the case when he was already in custody for another case.
The court asked why the team sought police questioning but then appeared unprepared to take him into police custody.
The Andhra Pradesh government and the investigation team challenged an earlier High Court decision.
That High Court had cancelled the arrests and remand of Raj Kesireddy and D. Vasudeva Reddy.
The Supreme Court issued notices to both men and postponed the next hearing.
It will first examine the investigation team’s conduct before deciding whether to interfere with the High Court order.
The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with the SIT’s handling of the alleged Andhra Pradesh liquor transportation scam investigation.
The bench questioned what the investigation had established after continuing for about two years.
It challenged the need for a production warrant and police custody for Raj Kesireddy, who was already in custody in another case.
The court issued notices to Raj Kesireddy and former APSBCL managing director D. Vasudeva Reddy.
The Andhra Pradesh government and SIT challenged High Court orders that quashed their arrests and remand, while the next hearing was adjourned.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh government, the Special Investigation Team, Raj Kesireddy, and D. Vasudeva Reddy.
- What
- The Supreme Court questioned the SIT’s investigation and custody requests, issued notices to the two accused men, and heard the challenge to the High Court’s order.
- When
- The hearing took place on Monday; the articles do not specify the date.
- Where
- The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of India and concern an Andhra Pradesh case.
- Why
- The Andhra Pradesh government and SIT challenged High Court orders that quashed the arrests and remand, while the Supreme Court raised concerns about the investigation’s progress and handling of custody.
Andhra Pradesh Government and SIT
High Court and Supreme Court Concerns
Challenge to the High Court order
Andhra Pradesh Government and SIT
The Andhra Pradesh government and SIT challenged the High Court decision that quashed the arrests and remand of Raj Kesireddy and D. Vasudeva Reddy.
High Court and Supreme Court Concerns
The High Court found that statutory and constitutional safeguards governing arrest were not properly followed; the Supreme Court said it would first examine the SIT’s conduct.
Police custody and production warrant
Andhra Pradesh Government and SIT
The SIT sought a production warrant and custodial interrogation of Raj Kesireddy as part of the investigation.
High Court and Supreme Court Concerns
The Supreme Court questioned why a production warrant was needed when he was already in custody and why the SIT appeared unprepared to take him into police custody after obtaining the warrant.
Investigation progress
Andhra Pradesh Government and SIT
The SIT continued pursuing the alleged liquor scam case and sought custody-related orders.
High Court and Supreme Court Concerns
The Supreme Court questioned what had been established after the investigation continued for about two years.
- Case
- Alleged Andhra Pradesh liquor transportation or illegal liquor scam
- Investigation duration
- The Supreme Court said the investigation had continued for about two years.
- Main custody issue
- The bench questioned why a production warrant and police custody were sought for Raj Kesireddy, who was already in custody in another case.
- High Court ruling
- The High Court quashed the arrests and consequential remand of Raj Kesireddy and D. Vasudeva Reddy.
- High Court reasoning
- It held that merely reading out the grounds of arrest during remand proceedings did not satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
- Supreme Court action
- Notices were issued to Raj Kesireddy and D. Vasudeva Reddy.
- Next step
- The matter was adjourned, with the State government and SIT directed to file their response.
