The Supreme Court said it will closely examine whether there is sufficient material to implicate YouTuber Elvish Yadav in a case alleging misuse of snakes and snake venom, warning that the episode sends a damaging public message. A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made it clear that the Court will scrutinise both his alleged role and the statutory requirements under the Wildlife Protection Act before deciding the course of action.
Yadav has challenged a May 12, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash proceedings arising from a chargesheet filed under the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC and NDPS Act. The case stems from allegations that snakes and snake venom were used in a YouTube video and at rave parties where intoxicants were allegedly supplied. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for Yadav, argued that forensic reports indicated the presence of snake venom antibodies, not venom itself, and contended that anti-venom cannot be treated as a narcotic substance under the NDPS framework. She further maintained that no snakes, venom or drugs were recovered from Yadav and that a prior FIR relating to the video had ended in closure.
The State, however, relied on location data, surveillance inputs and alleged links with co-accused to argue that protected species were supplied and venom extracted for unlawful use.
The Bench signalled serious concern over the broader implications of the allegations, particularly involving a public figure. “It will send a very bad message outside if a person like you… is allowed to use a hapless victim which is voiceless,” the Court remarked, stressing that animals protected under law cannot be handled for publicity. The judges also sought clarity on whether venom extraction was even possible if the snakes allegedly lacked fangs, whether the NDPS Act applied, and whether cognisance under the Wildlife Protection Act was validly taken.
The State has been directed to place additional material, including relevant authorisations, on record before the next hearing in March 2026.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :