The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine whether sufficient material exists to implicate YouTuber Elvish Yadav under the Wildlife Protection Act. The Court observed that allowing a popular person to use a “voiceless” animal for publicity may send a wrong message.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh heard Yadav’s plea. He has challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order dated May 12, 2025. The High Court had dismissed his petition against the chargesheet and summoning order issued under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Court’s Observations
The Bench said it would examine two aspects. First, it will assess Yadav’s alleged role. Second, it will consider whether material on record justifies prosecution. The Court also stated that it must examine the action required under the Wildlife Protection Act.
The judges remarked that permitting a well-known figure to use a “hapless victim which is voiceless” would send a “very, very bad message.”
Earlier, on August 6 last year, the Supreme Court had stayed trial court proceedings against Yadav.
Allegations in the Case
The case concerns allegations that Yadav misused snakes and snake venom in a YouTube video. The prosecution also alleges that he organised rave parties where foreigners supplied snake venom and other intoxicants.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta appeared for Yadav. She argued that authorities recovered antibodies, not snake venom. Referring to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, she submitted that it showed a “positive result for antibodies of snake venom for four common snakes, namely cobra, krait, russells and saw scaled viper.” According to her, the report did not confirm the presence of venom.
She further submitted that the snakes shown in the video had no teeth or venom glands. Therefore, the chargesheet incorrectly assumed that venom was recovered.
Arguments on NDPS Act
Gupta relied on a six-member medical committee report. The report stated that snake venom may have neurotoxic effects and may act as a substitute for opioids. However, anti-snake venom neutralises envenomation and is administered intravenously. She submitted that anti-venom is not used for recreation. Therefore, the alleged recovery could not function as an intoxicant.
On the NDPS Act, she argued that snake venom antibodies do not appear in the Schedule. She contended, “Police cannot create an offense which is not there on the statute book.”
The State opposed this argument. State counsel submitted that authorities frequently update the Schedule to include new substances. Therefore, absence from the Schedule does not automatically make a substance harmless.
State’s Submissions
The Bench asked the State whether venom could be extracted from snakes without fangs. It also sought clarification on material showing use at rave parties.
The State submitted that location records placed Yadav and other accused at the same banquet hall and restaurant several times. It also relied on surveillance inputs. According to the prosecution, Yadav used virtual numbers to contact co-accused Vinay Yadav, Ishwar Yadav, and Rahul Sapera. The State alleged that snakes were supplied at rave parties where venom was extracted and used as an intoxicant.
Counsel for Yadav denied organising rave parties. She said no evidence supports such allegations. She also submitted that authorities recovered no snakes, venom, or narcotic substances from Yadav. Further, she stated that he was not present at the alleged recovery site.
IPC Charges and Closure Report
Gupta addressed offences under Sections 284 and 289 IPC. She said authorities invoked these provisions based on a YouTube video in which Yadav made a guest appearance. She informed the Court that a separate FIR in Gurgaon concerning the same video ended in a closure report. The report concluded that no cruelty occurred and that required permissions were obtained. She argued that authorities cannot reuse the same material to prosecute Yadav.
The Court said it would examine the legal effect of the closure report. Justice Sundresh noted that snakes are Scheduled animals under the Wildlife Protection Act. He questioned whether anyone can handle such animals for publicity. He observed that even if a snake appears nearby, the law does not permit killing or handling it. The Court indicated that it would consider the issue independently of the closure report.
Section 55 Wildlife Protection Act Issue
Gupta further argued that Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act restricts cognisance. Courts can take cognisance only on a complaint by specified authorities or a person who has given the required notice. She submitted that in this case, the court took cognisance based on a police chargesheet.
The State responded that the Uttar Pradesh government has authorised police officers for this purpose. It sought time to place the relevant notification on record.
The Court also directed the State to clarify whether the video producer had obtained all required permissions.
The matter will be listed on March 19, 2026, to enable the State to place additional material on record.
Case Title:
Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of UP and Anr.
