Supreme Court Clears Elvish Yadav of Snake Venom Charges: What’s Next for the YouTuber?

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has dismissed the criminal charges against YouTuber Elvish Yadav related to the alleged use of snake venom at rave parties in Noida. The court found that the application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Wildlife Protection Act was not legally sustainable. While the ruling clears Yadav of immediate charges, it does not exonerate him entirely, leaving room for future legal actions. This article delves into the court's reasoning and the implications for Yadav moving forward.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 19, 2026, 16:16 IST

Supreme Court Ruling on Elvish Yadav's Case

New Delhi: On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal charges against YouTuber and reality show champion Elvish Yadav, which were related to the alleged use of snake venom at rave parties in Noida and the surrounding National Capital Region (NCR). The court determined that the application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act was not legally valid.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh granted a special leave petition (SLP) from Yadav, overturning a previous decision by the Allahabad High Court that had declined to dismiss the ongoing criminal case in Gautam Buddha Nagar.

The legal troubles stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) filed in November 2023 at the Sector 49 police station in Noida, following a complaint from the animal rights group People for Animals (PFA) regarding the alleged procurement and use of snake venom at parties in the NCR.

The bench, led by Justice Sundresh, clarified that its focus was on specific legal issues rather than the merits of the allegations. It identified two main questions: the relevance of Section 2(23) of the NDPS Act and the legitimacy of actions under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Upon reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the substance reportedly found with a co-accused did not qualify as a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act.

The bench noted, "Regarding Section 2(23) of the NDPS Act, it is clear that the substance recovered from the co-accused does not fit the definition of psychotropic substances listed in the schedule."

Additionally, the court pointed out that no evidence was found against Yadav himself, as the accusations were limited to him allegedly placing orders through an associate.

In examining the Wildlife (Protection) Act proceedings, the bench looked into Section 55, which stipulates that prosecution can only commence based on a complaint from an authorized officer.

The court observed that the complaint in this case was lodged by an individual linked to an animal welfare organization, rather than a recognized authority under the law.

"We conclude that Section 55 of the Act necessitates a complaint from an authorized entity," the bench stated, ruling that the FIR, as it stands, lacks legal validity.

However, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was not exonerating Yadav, as the allegations had not been evaluated on their merits.

The court allowed the appropriate authorities to pursue legal action as per the law, including filing a valid complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Previously, the Supreme Court had halted the trial court proceedings against Yadav while addressing his SLP that contested the Allahabad High Court's decision to not quash the case before the trial began.