The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it would examine the complaint against YouTuber Elvish Yadav under the Wildlife (Protection) Act in the alleged snake venom case, observing that allowing popular personalities to use “voiceless victims” like snakes could send a “very bad message” to society. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 19.
A Bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav’s plea challenging the chargesheet and criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in connection with the alleged use of snake venom at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned whether public figures could be permitted to handle wild animals for entertainment purposes.
“If popular persons are allowed to use ‘voiceless victims’ like snakes, it could send a very bad message to the society… You take the snake and play around. Did you deal with the snake or not? 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. We are concerned with the complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act,” the court told Yadav’s counsel.
The court also asked the State to explain the process by which snake venom is allegedly extracted and used in rave parties.
Yadav was booked in November 2023 and arrested on March 17, 2024 in connection with allegations that snake venom was used as a recreational drug at rave parties. According to the prosecution, the police rescued nine snakes, including five cobras, and recovered suspected venom.
The chargesheet alleges that snake venom was consumed at such gatherings by attendees, including foreign nationals.
On August 6 last year, the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings before the trial court in the case.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for Yadav, contended that he had attended the event only for a guest appearance in a music video of singer Fazilpuria. It was argued that there was no evidence of any rave party or consumption of a scheduled psychotropic substance.
The defence further submitted that Yadav was not present at the alleged location and that medical reports showed the nine snakes examined were not poisonous. It was also argued that no snakes, narcotic substances, or psychotropic materials were recovered from him and no causal link had been established between him and the co-accused.
The counsel additionally questioned the informant’s status, submitting that the FIR was filed by a person who was no longer an animal welfare officer but represented himself as one.
Counsel for the State submitted that nine snakes were rescued and that suspected snake venom used in rave parties was recovered during the investigation.
Taking note of the rival submissions, the Bench said it would examine the complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and posted the matter for hearing on March 19.
