Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: Indicating that it would examine a complaint against YouTuber Elvish Yadav under the Wildlife (Protection) Act in the snake venom case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said if popular persons are allowed to use “voiceless victims” like snakes, it could send a “very bad message” to society.The controversial YouTuber was booked in November 2023 and arrested on March 17, 2024, for allegedly using snake venom at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea filed by Yadav challenging the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings initiated against him 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 Yadav, argued that the YouTuber had attended the event only for a guest appearance in a video featuring singer Fazilpuria, and that there was no evidence of a rave party or the consumption of any scheduled psychotropic substance.She further contended that Yadav was not present at the alleged spot and pointed out that medical reports on record indicated that the nine snakes examined were not venomous. The counsel appearing for the state submitted that the police rescued nine snakes, including five cobras, and found suspected snake venom used in rave parties.The Supreme Court asked the state’s counsel to clarify how snake venom is extracted and allegedly used at rave parties.The matter has now been listed for hearing on March 19.Earlier, on August 6 last year, the apex court had stayed the trial court proceedings against Yadav in the case. The chargesheet alleges the consumption of snake venom as a recreational drug at “rave” parties by people, including foreigners. Yadav’s counsel had argued in the high court that no snakes, narcotic or psychotropic substances were recovered from him aside from the fact that no causal link was established between the applicant and the co-accused. Though the informant was no longer an animal welfare officer, he filed the FIR showing himself to be one, the counsel had added. Calling Yadav a “well-known influencer” and someone who appears in multiple reality shows on television, the counsel had said his involvement in the FIR garnered “much media attention”. (With agency inputs)
