News India Live, Digital Desk: The bench of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice N Kotishwar Singh gave this decision on Thursday (19 March 2026). The Court acknowledged that the allegations leveled against Elvish Yadav and the process by which the case was registered had serious legal flaws. 3 major grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision – Lack of Authorized Officer (Wildlife Act Violation): The Court noted that any case under the ‘Wildlife Protection Act’ can be initiated only on a complaint made by an Authorized Officer. In this case, the FIR was registered on the complaint of a person who was not a competent authority, hence the case was legally wrong ab initio. NDPS Act not applicable: The court clarified that the anti-venom that was recovered from the co-accused does not fall in the category of any prohibited or narcotic substance included in the Schedule of the NDPS Act. When the recovered substance itself does not fall under the category of drugs, it was wrong to impose NDPS sections. No direct recovery: The bench also took note of the fact that neither any snake nor any banned substance was personally recovered from Elvish Yadav. The allegations were based only on the ‘disclosure statement’ and indirect evidence. Background of the case (Case Background) Incident: In November 2023, an FIR was registered against several people including Elvish for supplying snake venom during a rave party in Sector-49, Noida. Arrest: Noida Police arrested Elvish on March 17, 2024, after which he remained in jail for a few days. High Court’s stand: Earlier, Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the case, which was challenged by Elvish in the Supreme Court. Court’s important comment: Although the Supreme Court has quashed the FIR on technical and legal grounds, the Court also clarified that: Liberty of fresh complaint: The Court has given liberty to the concerned Competent Authority that if they wish, they can file a fresh and proper complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife Act. Can register. Effect of popularity: The court had also said in the previous hearing that “a person’s popularity does not make him above the law”, but the present decision is completely based on non-following of legal process.
Comments are closed.