News India Live, Digital Desk: A bench of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice N Kotishwar Singh on Thursday (19 March 2026) delivered this verdict. The Court held that the allegations leveled against Elvish Yadav and the process by which the case was registered were seriously flawed.

3 big bases of 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 by a Authorized Officer This can happen only on the complaint made by. 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 from the very beginning.

NDPS Act does not apply: The court clarified that the anti-venom liquid recovered from the co-accused was NDPS Act Does not fall in the category of any banned or narcotic substance included in the Schedule. When the recovered substance itself does not fall in the category of drugs, then it was wrong to impose sections of NDPS.

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 ‘disclosure statements’ and indirect evidence.

Case Background

Event: 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 17 March 2024 Was arrested, after which he remained in jail for some days.

High Court’s stance: Earlier, Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the case, which was challenged by Elvish in the Supreme Court.

Important comment of the court

Although the Supreme Court quashed the FIR on technical and legal grounds, the Court also clarified that:

Exemption of latest complaint: The court has given the liberty to the concerned competent authority that if they wish, they can file a complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife Act. new and justified complaint Can enter.

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 current decision is based entirely on non-following of legal process.