Snake venom case: Supreme Court quashes FIR, proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav

The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 19, 2026) quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav under the Wildlife (Protection) Act in the snake venom case registered by Uttar Pradesh Police in 2023.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh said the case cannot be sustained in law as the complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act was not filed by an authorised person.

It said that offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) invoked in the FIR against Mr. Yadav were based on an earlier FIR registered in Gurugram, in which a closure report has been filed.

Referring to the provisions of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) Act invoked in the FIR against Mr. Yadav, the Bench said these cannot be invoked as the liquid substance (anti-venom) recovered from the co-accused was not a prescribed substance under the schedule.

It referred to the earlier decisions of the court and said that the case against Yadav cannot be sustained in law, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, including filing of the chargesheet and cognisance order of the trial court.

The case against Mr. Yadav was registered on November 22, 2023, and he was arrested on March 17, 2024, for the alleged use of snake venom at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The controversial YouTuber challenged an Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash the chargesheet and the cognisance order of the trial court, terming it a serious offence.

On August 6 last year, the apex court stayed proceedings in the trial court against Mr. Yadav in the case.

The chargesheet alleged the consumption of snake venom as a recreational drug at “rave” parties by people, including foreigners.

Mr. Yadav’s counsel had argued in the high court that no snakes, narcotics or psychotropic substances were recovered from him and no causal link was established between the applicant and the co-accused.

Though the informant was no longer an animal welfare officer, he filed the FIR showing himself to be one, the counsel had added.

Calling Mr. Yadav a “well-known influencer” and someone who appears in multiple reality shows on television, the counsel had said his involvement in the FIR garnered “much media attention”.