Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of U.P. 2026 INSC 329 - Wild Life (Protection) Act - NDPS Act - Snake Venom Anti-bodies
Once a power is exercised without jurisdiction, it is void ab initio, and any subsequent action or proceedings which stems from it, would likewise be rendered void.
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Section 55 - What is required to be presented under Section 55 is a private complaint by a competent “authorized officer” who is empowered to do so by the provision itself. This is based upon the concept that other authorities who lack complete jurisdiction cannot deprive the authorities that very well have the jurisdiction to set criminal prosecution in motion. (Para 34)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 2(xxiii) - The conscious omission of the legislature in not placing snake venom or antibodies to snake venom under the Schedule of the NDPS Act, would clearly mean that that the said substances could not have been construed as psychotropic substances, by any stretch of imagination, warranting application of the provisions under the NDPS Act. (Para 36)
Interpretation of Statutes - When an exception is carved out under a Special statute, there is an express exclusion of jurisdiction of the authorities who otherwise are empowered to take cognizance under the Cr.P.C. Thus, general penal provisions are not pari passu to the penal provisions provided under special statutes. We say so to reiterate the settled maxim of generalia specialibus non derogant viz. general things do not derogate from special things. (Para 31) When competent authorities are vested with the powers under the respective legislations, the Courts ought not to interfere with such exercise of power in a perfunctory manner, as the same would render the scope and objective of special statutes otiose. However, to clarify, the Courts are not restricted from examining whether such exercise is being carried out in accordance with the import of the statutory provision and to regulate procedural irregularities, which may otherwise arise. (Para 33) where a statute contains stringent provisions, a higher degree of care and caution is cast upon the investigating authorities. The investigation, therefore, must be thorough and be conducted with great circumspection. (Para 38)
Jurisdiction - Once a power is exercised without jurisdiction, it is void ab initio, and any subsequent action or proceedings which stems from it, would likewise be rendered void. (Para 42)
Case Info
Case Information
Case name: Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of U.P. & Anr.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 329Coram:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar SinghJudgment date: 19 March 2026 (New Delhi)
Statutes / Laws Referred
Indian Penal Code, 1860:Sections 120-B, 284, 289
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:Sections 9, 39, 48-A, 49, 50, 51, 55
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:Sections 2(xxiii), 8, 22, 29, 30, 32
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:Sections 2(d), 156(3), 173, 190, 195(1), 200, 202, 203, 210
Other special statutes discussed comparatively:
- Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 – Section 22, 13
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 32, 21–23
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 22, 4
- Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Section 13
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 19
Other provisions mentioned:
- Various “special complaint” provisions in Sea Customs Act 1878, Gold Control Act 1968, Import and Export Control Act 1947, Income Tax Act 1961, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973, Companies Act 1956, Electricity Supply Act (as illustrations)
Case Law Cited
- State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655
- Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 7 SCC 526
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674
- A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500
- Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 409
- Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1987) 1 SCC 533 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 193 : JT (1987) 1 SC 210
- B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7
Three-Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can only be taken on a complaint by the specifically authorised officers under Section 55, so a Magistrate could not validly proceed on a police chargesheet, rendering the proceedings against Elvish Yadav without jurisdiction. It further held that snake venom or antibodies to snake venom are not listed in the NDPS Act Schedule and therefore cannot be treated as a “psychotropic substance” under Section 2(xxiii), making invocation of NDPS offences unsustainable, and also noted that IPC sections based on an earlier closed complaint could not be reused in this manner. Consequently, the FIR, chargesheet, and all criminal proceedings were quashed, but liberty was reserved to the competent wildlife authorities under Section 55 to initiate proper complaint-based action if they so choose.