The Supreme Court of India said it will examine the complaint against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the snake venom case, warning that if popular figures use “voiceless victims” like snakes, it could send a very bad message to society.

In the said matter, the Police arrested Elvish Yadav  on March 17, 2024, for allegedly using snake venom at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh heard Yadav’s plea challenging the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings in the case.

"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 bench asked Yadav's lawyer.

Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for Elvish Yadav, told the court that Yadav attended the event only for a guest appearance in a video by singer Fazilpuria.

She argued that there is no evidence to show that a rave party took place or that anyone consumed any scheduled psychotropic substance.

She stressed that Elvish Yadav was not present at the alleged location and pointed out that medical reports on record showed that the nine snakes examined were not poisonous.

Opposing this, the counsel for the state told the court that the police rescued nine snakes, including five cobras, and recovered suspected snake venom allegedly used at rave parties.

The Supreme Court of India asked the state’s counsel to explain how snake venom is extracted and how it is allegedly used at rave parties.

The court has now listed the matter for further hearing on March 19.

Earlier, on August 6 last year, the top court had stayed the trial court proceedings against Yadav in the case.

The chargesheet claims that people, including foreigners, consumed snake venom as a recreational drug at rave parties.

Yadav’s counsel had earlier argued before the high court that investigators recovered no snakes and no narcotic or psychotropic substances from him. The counsel also said the prosecution failed to establish any link between Yadav and the co-accused.

She further alleged that the informant filed the FIR by projecting himself as an animal welfare officer, even though he no longer held that position.

Referring to Yadav as a “well-known influencer” who appears on several television reality shows, the counsel said his name in the FIR attracted significant media attention.