In a significant setback for controversial YouTuber and Bigg Boss OTT winner Elvish Yadav, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday delivered a scathing oral observation regarding his involvement in the alleged snake venom case. Hearing a plea challenging the criminal proceedings, the apex court warned that allowing popular figures to exploit wildlife sends a “very, very bad message” to society .
The bench, comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, was hearing Yadav’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Allahabad High Court’s order that refused to quash the chargesheet filed against him under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the NDPS Act .
The “Very Bad Message” That Angered the Court
The crux of the court’s ire stemmed from the alleged mishandling of snakes for content creation. The Supreme Court emphasized that protected wildlife cannot be treated as props for publicity or entertainment.
“If popular persons are allowed to use ‘voiceless victims’ like snakes, it could send a very bad message to society. You take the snake and play around. Did you deal with the snake or not?” the bench questioned Yadav’s counsel .
Drawing a sharp analogy, the court further asked, “Can you go to the zoo and play with animals there? Will it not be an offence? You can’t say that you’ll do whatever you want.” .
The bench made it clear that its primary concern was the alleged violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, stressing that the rules regarding scheduled animals are “very clear” and strictly enforced. Even encountering a snake requires informing wildlife officers, let alone using them in videos .
What is the Elvish Yadav Case?
For those unfamiliar with the case, the controversy erupted in November 2023 when Noida Police booked Elvish Yadav and several others. The allegations stem from a raid on a rave party where it was suspected that snake venom was being used as a recreational drug. During the operation, nine snakes, including five cobras, were rescued from the location .
Yadav was later arrested in March 2024. The chargesheet filed by the Uttar Pradesh police alleges the consumption of snake venom as a recreational drug at rave parties, involving foreign nationals as well .
Defense Arguments: “No Venom, Only Antibodies”
Appearing for Elvish Yadav, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta mounted a strong defense on multiple grounds. She argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated the presence of snake venom antibodies, not the venom itself .
- No Narcotic Substance: Gupta contended that snake venom antibodies are not included in the Schedule of the NDPS Act, and therefore, the stringent narcotics charges cannot be applied. “Police cannot create an offense which is not there on the statute book,” she argued .
- No Recovery from Yadav: It was emphasized that no snakes, venom, or psychotropic substances were recovered directly from Elvish Yadav, nor was he present at the alleged spot of the rave party .
- The Video Shoot: Regarding the visuals of Yadav handling snakes, the defense claimed this was a guest appearance for singer Fazilpuria’s video, for which proper permissions were allegedly taken. They also submitted that medical reports showed the snakes involved were non-venomous and lacked fangs .
The State’s Stand and the Court’s Queries
The Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel opposed the quashing petition, relying on surveillance inputs and location data to suggest a nexus between Yadav and the co-accused who supplied the snakes .
The Supreme Court has now sought clarity from the state on critical technical aspects:
- How snake venom is extracted from snakes.
- How it is allegedly used at rave parties.
- Whether venom extraction was even possible if the snakes lacked fangs (as claimed by the defense) .
- Verification of the permissions claimed for the video shoot .
The court has posted the matter for further hearing on March 19, 2026, granting time for the state to place additional material on record .
Conclusion: A Legal and Social Precedent
The Supreme Court’s strong remarks go beyond the guilt or innocence of Elvish Yadav. They highlight a growing judicial concern over the misuse of wildlife by influencers chasing virality. The phrase “voiceless victims” resonates deeply, reminding content creators that fame does not grant immunity from environmental and wildlife laws.
As the legal battle shifts to March 19, all eyes will be on whether the UP police can substantiate the technical aspects of their case. For now, the court has made it clear: if you can’t play with animals at the zoo, you can’t do it on YouTube either.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did the Supreme Court say about Elvish Yadav?
The Supreme Court observed that if popular persons like Elvish Yadav are allowed to use snakes (voiceless victims) for entertainment, it sends a “very, very bad message” to society. The court questioned the handling of scheduled animals under the Wildlife Protection Act .
2. What is the next date of hearing in the Elvish Yadav case?
The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 19, 2026. The Uttar Pradesh government has been asked to clarify how snake venom is extracted and used at rave parties .
3. What are the charges against Elvish Yadav?
Elvish Yadav is charged under the Wildlife (Protection) Act for alleged misuse of snakes, as well as under the NDPS Act and IPC sections related to conspiracy. The allegations involve using snake venom as a recreational drug at rave parties in Noida .
4. Was snake venom actually recovered from Elvish Yadav?
According to the defense, no snake venom was recovered directly from Elvish Yadav. They claim the FSL report showed the presence of antibodies of snake venom, not the venom itself. They also argue that the snakes recovered were found to be non-venomous .
5. Has the trial against Elvish Yadav been stopped?
The Supreme Court had previously stayed the trial court proceedings in August 2025. Currently, the court is examining the validity of the chargesheet. The proceedings will remain stayed until the next hearing unless the court lifts the stay .
About the Author
