UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — SC quashes criminal case against YouTuber Elvish Yadav

Q1. With reference to the cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, consider the following authorities: 1. Director of Wild Life Preservation 2. Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority 3. Director General of Police of the State concerned 4. Any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government On whose complaint is a court empowered to take cognizance? Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

  1. Director of Wild Life Preservation
  2. Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority
  3. Director General of Police of the State concerned
  4. Any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government
  • A. 1 and 4 only
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q2. Under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, what is the minimum period of prior notice that a private person must give before filing a complaint of an offence under the Act to a competent court?

  • A. 15 days
  • B. 30 days
  • C. 60 days
  • D. 90 days

Q3. Which one of the following is the nodal Union ministry primarily responsible for the administration of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, including notification of substances in its Schedule?

  • A. Ministry of Home Affairs
  • B. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
  • C. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
  • D. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Q4. In Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of U.P. (2026), the Supreme Court quashed proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by invoking which one of the following provisions governing the manner in which a court may take cognizance of offences under the Act?

  • A. Section 39
  • B. Section 50
  • C. Section 51
  • D. Section 55

Q5. With reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of U.P. (2026 INSC 329), consider the following statements: 1. The case under the NDPS Act, 1985 was quashed because snake venom is not specified in any Schedule to the Act as a psychotropic substance. 2. The proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were quashed on procedural grounds relating to cognizance being taken otherwise than on the complaint of an authorised officer. 3. The Court permanently barred any fresh proceedings against the accused under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The case under the NDPS Act, 1985 was quashed because snake venom is not specified in any Schedule to the Act as a psychotropic substance.
  2. The proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were quashed on procedural grounds relating to cognizance being taken otherwise than on the complaint of an authorised officer.
  3. The Court permanently barred any fresh proceedings against the accused under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3