New Delhi, February 18 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 that if popular persons are allowed to use "helpless victims" like snakes, it could send a "very negative message" to society.
The controversial YouTuber was booked in November 2023 and arrested on March 17, 2024 for the alleged use of snake venom at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea filed by Yadav challenging the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against him in the case.
"If popular persons are allowed to use "helpless victims" like snakes, it could send a very negative 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, submitted that the YouTuber went to the party for a guest appearance in a video of singer Fazilpuria and there was no evidence of any rave party or consumption of a scheduled psychotropic substance.
She emphasised that Yadav was not present at the alleged location and that medical reports on record showed the nine snakes examined were not poisonous.
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 top court asked the counsel for the state to explain how snake venom is extracted and used in rave parties.
The court has now posted the matter for hearing on March 19.
The apex court had on August 6 last year stayed proceedings in the trial court 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".