ThePrint ThePrintAM: What has SC squashed the case against Elvish Yadav?
5 snips
Mar 20, 2026 A legal update on the Supreme Court quashing proceedings related to a social media personality. Discussion of forensic findings saying recovered material were antibodies, not snake venom. Examination of procedural flaws in a Wildlife Protection Act complaint. Recap of raids, seizures and allegations about rave parties and snake handling.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Antibodies Are Not Snake Venom Under NDPS Law
- The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Elvish Yadav because recovered material was antibodies to snake venom, not snake venom itself.
- The bench found antibodies fall outside the NDPS Act and flagged procedural issues under the Wildlife Protection Act, so criminal proceedings lacked statutory fit.
Expert Report Didn't Cover The Actual Substance Found
- The court emphasised the NDPS schedule doesn't list antibodies and an expert panel's opinion about venom didn't cover antibodies.
- Yadav's lawyers relied on FSL findings and argued the six-member committee never examined antibodies, making its report irrelevant.
Procedural Flaws Undermined Wildlife Act Charges
- The Wildlife Protection Act complaint was procedurally flawed because only a designated authority may file such complaints.
- The Supreme Court noted Section 55 requires an authorized complainant and flagged irregular charge-sheet filing, allowing authorised persons to refile if needed.