Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Snake Venom Case; Allows Filing Of Fresh Wildlife Complaint

The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the criminal proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in a case alleging use of snake venom in video shoots and involvement in rave parties where drugs were consumed, holding that the FIR could not be sustained in law on the limited legal issues examined.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh clarified that it was confining its consideration to two specific questions: the applicability of Section 2(23) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the validity of proceedings under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

On the NDPS aspect, the Court recorded the submission of Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta that the alleged psychotropic substance (snake venom antidote) recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the Schedule of the NDPS Act. The Bench noted that, admittedly, the substance in question was not covered under the statutory schedule. It also took note of the argument that no recovery had been made from Yadav himself, with the charge sheet only alleging that he placed orders through an associate.

In light of this, the Court found that the invocation of the NDPS Act was not legally sustainable on the facts presented.

Turning to the second issue concerning the Wildlife Protection Act, the Bench observed that Section 55 mandates that prosecution can be initiated only through a complaint filed by a duly authorised officer. The complaint that led to registration of the present FIR was filed by one Gaurav Gupta, associated with an animal welfare organisation called People For Animals (PFA).

Referring to settled precedent on the point, the Court held that the FIR, in its present form, was not maintainable as it was not filed by a competent authority.  The Court also expressed doubts on the complainant's bona fides.

The Court also recorded the submission that offences under the Indian Penal Code were not independently made out, as they were part of an earlier complaint that had already been closed.

Concluding that the FIR could not stand scrutiny on these legal grounds, the bench ordered that the proceedings be quashed. However, it clarified that it had not examined the underlying allegations on merits.

Notably, the Court granted liberty to the competent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including by filing a proper complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act. "We are not going to give a clean chit to this person. If he has committed something it has to be done", Justice Sundresh remarked.

The Court was hearing Yadav's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's order dated May 12, 2025, which had dismissed his petition against the chargesheet and summoning order issued in a case under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and NDPS Act.

Last month, the Court said it would examine whether there was adequate material to implicate him under the Wildlife Protection Act, remarking that it gives a very bad message that a popular person used a voiceless snake for publicity.

AAG Apoorva Agarwal appeared for the State of UP.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 11480/2025

Case Title – Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of UP and Anr.