The order was issued on August 6, 2025, following a plea against an order from the Allahabad High Court that dismissed Yadav’s petition challenging the charges against him. The charges stem from an FIR lodged at PS Sector-49, Noida, where it is alleged that Yadav not only misused snakes and snake venom for one of his viral YouTube videos but also organized parties where intoxicating substances were supplied by foreigners.
This ongoing case involves multiple serious charges under various legal provisions, including the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who presided over the court bench, have issued a notice linked to the prior dismissal by the High Court. This dismissal had previously upheld charges against Yadav, which included multiple sections of the Wildlife Protection Act and the NDPS Act. Yadav’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, argued for an interim stay in light of claims that the NDPS case was improperly constructed against him and pointed out lapses in statutory compliance. The trial court had listed the matter for charge framing, which has now been put on hold pending further deliberation.
The background of the case reveals that Yadav’s defense strongly contested the legality of the FIR itself, stating that the complainant lacked the competency to file it under the Wildlife Protection Act. It was noted that the individual who filed the FIR was a former Animal Welfare Officer and was not in that capacity when the complaint was made. Furthermore, no evidence pointing to the recovery of snakes or illegal substances from Yadav had been presented.
In court, Yadav’s lawyers contended that the allegations stemmed from an overzealous police response to public scrutiny, fueled by Yadav’s popularity as an influencer. The defense posited that the scenario escalated due to media pressure surrounding his public persona. They also highlighted that Yadav was approached to shoot a song involving snakes, and insisted that the snakes used were harmless and owned by the producers of the video.
On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General representing the State, Manish Goyal, contended that investigations had established Yadav’s connection to the individuals from whom snakes were allegedly seized. He maintained that the prosecution had sufficient grounds to proceed and that the defense arguments could only be fully assessed during the trial.
Following Yadav’s unsuccessful attempt to quash the High Court proceedings, the situation remains fluid as the Supreme Court has now tagged this case with another matter involving a complainant seeking protective measures, to be heard on August 29.
With public interest piqued concerning the implications of this case on wildlife conservation laws and the entertainment industry, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it deliberates further on Yadav’s plea, and the legal landscape unfolds.
