Supreme Court Flags Bad Message in Yadav Snake Case

In a pointed observation that underscores the intersection of celebrity influence and wildlife conservation, the Supreme Court of India has signalled its intent to closely examine popular YouTuber Elvish Yadav's alleged involvement in a high-profile snake venom case. A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh remarked that allowing a famous personality to exploit "a hapless victim which is voiceless" sends "a very, very bad message." The court is set to probe whether there is sufficient material implicating Yadav under the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), while defence counsel argued vehemently that no snake venom—but merely antibodies—was recovered, challenging the foundational basis of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter, adjourned to March 19, 2026, highlights critical procedural and substantive issues in environmental criminal law.

Case Background and Procedural History

The controversy traces back to allegations that Elvish Yadav, real name Siddharth, misused snakes and their venom in a YouTube video and was linked to organising rave parties where snake venom was supplied as an intoxicant by foreigners. An FIR was lodged under provisions of the WPA, IPC Sections 284 (negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance) and 289 (negligent conduct with respect to animal), and the NDPS Act.

On August 6, 2024, the Supreme Court granted an interim stay on trial court proceedings, recognising the need for scrutiny amid claims of misuse of protected species. However, the Allahabad High Court, in an order dated May 12, 2025, dismissed Yadav's petition challenging the chargesheet and summoning order, prompting the current Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11480/2025, titled Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of UP and Anr.

This case has drawn significant attention due to Yadav's massive online following, raising questions about whether fame shields or exacerbates accountability in wildlife offences. Snakes featured—cobra, krait, Russell's viper, and saw-scaled viper—are all Schedule I or II species under the WPA, afforded stringent protection.

Defence's Core Contentions

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta , representing Yadav, mounted a multi-pronged attack on the prosecution's case. Central to her submissions was the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which tested "positive result for antibodies of snake venom for four common snakes" but explicitly did not confirm snake venom itself. "The entire chargesheet proceeds on the basis that snake venom was recovered, which is contrary to the record," she argued.

Gupta emphasised that the snakes in the impugned YouTube video were toothless and lacked venom glands, rendering venom extraction impossible. She cited a six-member medical committee report stating that anti-snake venom neutralises envenomation intravenously and is not used recreationally, unlike venom which may mimic opioid effects.

On the NDPS Act, she asserted that snake venom antibodies are absent from its schedules: "Police cannot create an offense which is not there on the statute book." No snakes, venom, or narcotics were recovered from Yadav, who was absent from recovery sites. Regarding IPC charges, she invoked a Gurgaon FIR on the same video, closed after confirming no cruelty and valid permissions.

Procedurally, under Section 55 WPA, cognisance requires a complaint from authorised officers or notice-givers—not a police chargesheet—rending the trial court's action void ab initio.

State's Rebuttals and Evidence Claims

The State of Uttar Pradesh countered aggressively, dismissing the antibodies distinction. Counsel highlighted location records placing Yadav and co-accused—Vinay Yadav, Ishwar Yadav, and Rahul Sapera—at the same banquet halls and restaurants multiple times. Surveillance inputs alleged Yadav's use of virtual numbers to coordinate snake supplies for rave parties, where venom was extracted for intoxication.

On NDPS applicability, the state argued: “This is an evolving thing, which continuously upgrades. Certain new substances are always added to the Schedule. It can't be said that if it is not in Schedule, it cannot be used as a substance which is of danger or any harm to the society.” They claimed Uttar Pradesh notifications authorise police for WPA complaints, seeking time to file them.

The state also questioned snake conditions and permissions, promising material on rave party linkages.

Bench's Key Observations

The bench's remarks carried moral and legal weight. Justice Sundresh observed: “There are 2 things we will consider. What is your role and is there anything to implicate you on the alleged offence. At the same time, we have to see what is the action that is required to be taken under the Wildlife Protection Act. We could have disposed even today itself. It will send a very bad message outside if a person like you know who is otherwise a person who is popular is allowed to use a hapless victim which is voiceless. It gives a very, very bad message.”

Further, on handling protected snakes: “If you could take this snake and play around and show it around, see now these are all Scheduled animals. Even if a snake comes here, we are not supposed to kill it. Now, if that is the situation, if you take it out when you know it under the protection of the Wildlife Act, we are not supposed to touch it. Now, whatever the closure report, we have to think beyond it. If you take it and then play it around....”

The court queried venom extraction sans fangs, rave evidence, video permissions, and closure report effects, refusing summary disposal.

Spotlight on Procedural Compliance

A pivotal battleground is Section 55 WPA, mandating cognisance only on complaints by specified authorities (e.g., Chief Wildlife Warden). Defence claims the police chargesheet bypasses this, while the state cites empowerment notifications. This echoes precedents like State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992), stressing strict WPA compliance to prevent misuse.

The court directed clarification on video producer permissions and additional records, underscoring procedural sanctity.

Legal Analysis: Statutes Under Scrutiny

This hearing dissects multiple statutes. Under WPA, scheduled snakes' protection extends to handling (Section 39/50), beyond mere killing. Courts have held casual "playing around" as offence (e.g., State v. Mohan Ahir on wildlife trade).

NDPS hinges on Schedule inclusion; venom/antibodies unlisted. Defence invokes Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) for strict construction, contra state's "evolving" plea akin to synthetic drugs cases ( Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana ). FSL's "antibodies" vs. "venom" distinction is crucial—antivenom (immunoglobulins) neutralises, venom intoxicates—potentially collapsing NDPS charges if unproven.

IPC Sections 284/289 target negligence endangering life/public safety; video "guest appearance" may not suffice sans direct handling proof. Gurgaon's closure raises res judicata under CrPC Section 300?

Court's "bad message" injects equity, potentially influencing bail/sentencing, per Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar on celebrity cases.

Implications for Wildlife Law and Celebrity Accountability

For legal practitioners, this case signals heightened judicial intolerance for wildlife misuse by influencers. It may expand WPA to media props, mandating CITES/WPA permits for shoots. NDPS debates could prompt amendments including venom, mirroring global bans (e.g., Australia's reptile venom controls).

Celebrity angle critiques "two-tier justice"—fame delaying probes but inviting stricter messaging, as in Salman Khan poaching cases. Prosecutors must bolster forensics; defence, leverage technical reports.

Broader: Bolsters eco-justice amid biodiversity crises, urging robust surveillance in rave cultures.

Looking Ahead

Adjourned for state affidavits, the March 19, 2026 listing could quash proceedings or vacate stays, setting WPA/NDPS precedents. Legal eagles watch if "voiceless victims" rhetoric translates to substantive protection, balancing fame with fauna.