Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Elvish Yadav; No “Clean Chit” Granted

In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday, March 19, 2026, quashed the criminal proceedings against YouTuber and Bigg Boss OTT 2 winner Elvish Yadav.

The case, which centered on the alleged use of snake venom at rave parties and during video shoots, was deemed “legally unsustainable” in its current form by a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.

However, the court pointedly remarked that this ruling is a technical dismissal and not a “clean chit” on the merits of the allegations.

1. The NDPS Act: Lack of Scheduled Substances

The court’s primary reason for quashing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act charges was the nature of the evidence:

• No Recovery: The bench noted that no prohibited substances were recovered directly from Elvish Yadav.
• Non-Psychotropic Material: Crucially, the court found that the substance recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the specific schedule of psychotropic substances defined under the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The Wildlife Protection Act: Procedural Flaw

The court identified a “fundamental legal flaw” regarding the charges under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:

• Unauthorized Complaint: Under Section 55 of the Act, a prosecution can only be initiated by a complaint from a “duly authorized officer” of the government.
• NGO Involvement: The current FIR was based on a complaint by Gaurav Gupta of the NGO People For Animals. The court held that a private citizen or NGO cannot bypass the statutory requirement for an authorized official to file the complaint.

3. No “Clean Chit”: Liberty for Fresh Action

While the FIR was quashed, the bench left the door wide open for future prosecution:

• Merits Untouched: The court clarified it had not examined whether Yadav actually used snake venom or misused wildlife.
• Quote from the Bench: “We are not going to give a clean chit… If he has committed something, it has to be dealt with,” the bench remarked.
• Future Proceedings: The court granted liberty to the “competent statutory authorities” (such as the Forest Department) to initiate fresh, legally valid proceedings under the Wildlife Act if they choose to do so.

Case Status Summary: Elvish Yadav (March 2026)