The Supreme Court of India on Thursday set aside criminal proceedings against Elvish Yadav in a case linked to the alleged use of snake venom at rave parties in Noida and the National Capital Region, ruling that the charges invoked under key laws were not legally sustainable.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed a special leave petition filed by Yadav, overturning an earlier order of the Allahabad High Court which had declined to quash the proceedings pending before a trial court in Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The case originated from a First Information Report registered in November 2023 at Sector 49 police station in Noida, following a complaint by People for Animals. The complaint alleged the procurement and use of snake venom at rave gatherings in the NCR.
While examining the petition, the apex court limited its review to specific legal questions, without entering into the factual merits of the allegations. It identified two central issues: whether provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were applicable, and whether the proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act complied with statutory requirements.
On the first issue, the court found that the substance reportedly recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the list of notified psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act. It held that the material in question could not legally attract provisions under the law as framed in the case.
The Bench further noted that no recovery had been made directly from Yadav. It observed that the allegations against him were confined to claims of placing orders through an associate, without material evidence linking him to possession.
Addressing the second issue, the court examined the procedural requirement under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, which mandates that prosecution must be initiated through a complaint filed by an authorised officer. It found that the complaint in the present case had been submitted by an individual associated with an animal welfare organisation, rather than a competent authority recognised under the statute.
On this basis, the court held that the proceedings, as initiated, were not maintainable in law.
However, the Bench clarified that its ruling should not be interpreted as a determination on the truthfulness of the allegations. It stated that the court had not examined the case on merits and had only addressed the legal validity of the charges and procedure.
The court also granted liberty to the appropriate authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, including filing a valid complaint under the relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Earlier, the apex court had stayed the trial court proceedings while issuing notice on Yadav’s petition challenging the high court’s refusal to quash the case at the pre-trial stage.
