ELVISHHHH BHAIII ke aage koi bol sakta hai kya? Bol diya, Supreme Court ne!
Now before the Supreme Court of India, the matter concerning snake venom and Elvish Yadav, a figure known for online videos and televised drama, has changed status from public spectacle to rigorous scrutiny under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Now under review by a panel of two judges, M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, is whether enough evidence exists to move forward in the case involving Yadav. Following a decision at the Allahabad High Court that declined to cancel the charges lodged, appeal shifted toward the highest judicial body. There has been a temporary pause now blocking lower court actions in this case, following a high court decision that questions whether the legal basis holds.
What Are The Allegations Against Him?
This venomous case is tied to accusations involving snakes and their venom at an event near Noida tied to Elvish Yadav. During a raid, authorities took into custody nine reptiles, among them five were cobras and the document filed by prosecutors claims toxins were distributed, possibly ingested for altered states at nighttime assemblies. The method of sourcing and use has pointed toward unconventional practices within closed gatherings.
A legal proceeding began under the Wildlife Protection Act, together with certain clauses of the Indian Penal Code. For a period, elements of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applied, given claims about venom functioning as an intoxicant.
Fines may apply if venom is collected without approval, since rules control how certain animals are managed and when removal occurs outside medical contexts, legal consequences follow under conservation statutes. Handling such creatures demands authorization due to their protected status and if handled without permission, activity involving them breaches established restrictions.
This Is What Supreme Court Said…
A firm decision was echoed at the recent hearing, as the Supreme Court voiced pointed remarks in open session.
Could consent for filming truly cover venom removal? That was the query raised by the bench and when public personalities exploit silent creatures such as snakes, noted the judges, societal signals may shift in troubling ways.
“If popular persons are allowed to use “voiceless victims” like snakes, it could send a very bad 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.
A directive now requires the Uttar Pradesh administration to define clearly what kind of authorizations were used.
The Defence’s Stand
Appearing on behalf of Elvish Yadav, senior advocate Mukta Gupta firmly challenged the accusations. Appearing briefly in a music video by artist Fazilpuria, she stressed that Elvish Yadav’s involvement did not extend beyond that moment. Following this point, the organisation of any rave event falls outside his actions and not one trace of poison or controlled drug linked to him emerged during the investigation. Without seizure of a listed substance, application of the NDPS Act lacks foundation and legal pursuit under such conditions raises questions about procedural fit.
A point of procedure emerged during the hearing, tied to Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act. According to this provision, judicial notice of an offence requires more than just a police report.
According to defence sources, health records indicated the reptiles tested carried no toxins. Still, prosecutors argue traces possibly containing poison were found, while insisting broader allegations demand courtroom scrutiny.
The Legal Journey So Far: Elvish’s Arrest & Bail
Following his arrest in March 2024 over the matter, Elvish Yadav eventually received bail. The Allahabad High Court declined his request to dismiss the chargesheet, noting the available evidence supports a judicial review and yes, trial proceedings remain justified, according to court findings.
The highest judicial body paused trial activities temporarily during August of 2025. Examination currently takes place on whether sufficient grounds exist under law for continuation of the matter.
Proceeding forward translates to facing charges in open court, governed by strict environmental statutes.
Wait a minnnn, who is Elvish Yadav?
In 1997, a boy named Siddharth Yadav entered the world in Gurugram, Haryana and soon fame arrived too, via YouTube, though its path was gradual. By roughly 2016, videos started appearing; they used to be short comic scenes shaped by local wit and oof, ofcourse we mean, Haryanvi too.
Ahead of the BB finale, few expected a wildcard entry to claim the title. But ELVISHHHH BHAIIIIIII (sorry). His name spread quickly across regions once the results were announced, and only then did mainstream outlets begin featuring his journey regularly.
A widely shared phrase within his supporter base – “Elvish Bhai ke saamne koi bol sakta hai kya?” – came to mirror his strong digital presence and despite vast numbers following him on Instagram, appearances on national TV programs added further weight to his broad recognition.
Elvishhhhh Bhaiiiii Controversies
The Maxtern Assault Incident
During March 2024, footage appeared on the internet said to capture Elvish Yadav striking Maxtern, real name Sagar Thakur – in what seemed an altercation. Though unconfirmed by official sources, the recording quickly circulated across platforms.
A clash, said to begin in digital arguments, linked the actions of both individuals and almost at once, viewers shared the footage widely, prompting anger across platforms and a formal police report. Opinions split sharply online; certain followers saw only a private conflict growing out of control.
Further questions arose as attention on Yadav’s actions increased.
The Chum Darang Racist Remarks Incident
Elvish Bhai had another controversy to top it all off.
By early 2025, strong criticism followed Elvish Yadav after comments he made regarding Chum Darang, actor and participant on Bigg Boss 18 during a discussion with Rajat Dalal on a podcast. (Ofcourse).
Within the commonly shared video, Yadav stated:
“Karanveer must have had COVID because who would even like Chum, bro? Who has such bad taste! And even Chum’s name itself is vulgar… Her name is Chum, and she worked in Gangubai Kathiawadi.”
WOAH! As you may have predicted, disapproval followed the comment sections like wildfire, like Elvish was dry grass and his comment was the matchstick the world knew they did not need.
Many saw it as being dismissive of ethnic identity, especially given Chum Darang’s roots in Arunachal Pradesh. Her past reflections on prejudice against those from India’s northeastern regions added weight to the reaction and though not framed as intentional, the tone struck observers as out of step with lived experiences.
Public response came from Chum Darang, who said laughter at her name crossed into disrespect. Addressing the issue, the Arunachal Pradesh State Commission for Women labeled the comments offensive and grounded in racial bias.
Even with widespread popularity and regular TV appearances, the allegations tied to snake venom mark a critical point in Elvish Yadav’s professional life. With the highest court still reviewing the file, no conclusion stands firm and it is quite evident that discussion now rests not in trending posts but within deeper legal examination.