The Allahabad High Court has firmly stated that popularity offers no shield from the law, refusing to quash the case against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the ongoing snake venom case. The court emphasized that an individual's fame or social status cannot be grounds for exemption from legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle of equality before the law.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava, in an order passed last month, observed, "The popularity or position of the accused cannot be the basis for extension of protection, and as per the law of this land, each and every person, irrespective of their popularity or personality, is equal in the eyes of the law." The court made this observation while dismissing Yadav's application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Yadav had approached the High Court challenging the charge sheet dated April 5, 2024, and the summoning order dated April 8, 2024, issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar. He sought to quash the entire proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Senior Advocate Navin Sinha, appearing for Yadav along with Advocates Nipun Singh and Naman Agarwal, argued that the FIR was invalid because it was filed by an Animal Welfare Officer who lacked the authority under Section 55 of the Wildlife Act to do so. The defense also contended that Yadav was not present at the party where the alleged offense occurred, and no incriminating material was recovered from him.

Furthermore, Yadav's legal team argued that his celebrity status and widespread popularity had unduly influenced the case, leading police to invoke NDPS Act provisions, including sections 27 and 27A, immediately after his arrest. They also claimed that Yadav was approached by music producers in June 2023 to shoot a video featuring snakes, which were claimed to be non-poisonous and kept as pets by the producers. They argued that no animal or person was harmed during the shoot, and thus, the stringent NDPS provisions were not applicable.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, representing the State, along with Advocate Pankaj Saxena, and Advocate Srijan Pandey for the informant, opposed the plea. They argued that Yadav's contentions must be examined during the course of the trial proceedings. The Additional Advocate General also countered the defense's claims by stating that the investigation revealed Yadav had supplied the snakes used at the party.

The court stated that the allegations contradicted by Yadav's counsel based on some relevant facts are amenable to be examined by the learned trial court during the trial. Emphasizing the principle of equality before the law, the Court rejected all submissions that sought relief based on Yadav's public image or celebrity status, concluding that the application lacked merit and dismissing it.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the law impartially, regardless of an individual's social standing. It serves as a reminder that fame and popularity do not grant immunity from legal scrutiny and that all citizens are subject to the same legal standards. The case will now proceed to trial, where the veracity of the allegations against Elvish Yadav will be tested.