Author : Aadi Mahajan, HVPS College of Law
Abstract
The rapid expansion of drone technology has necessitated a robust legal framework to regulate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in India. The Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 seeks to replace the subordinate legislative regime under the Drone Rules, 2021 with a comprehensive statutory enactment. The Bill aims to balance national security, public safety, and orderly airspace management while promoting the drone ecosystem. This article critically examines the Bill’s objectives, legal terminology, evidentiary basis, and judicial relevance, and evaluates its implications for regulatory governance in India.
To the Point
The Draft Drone Bill, 2025 proposes a centralised statutory regime governing the manufacture, registration, possession, operation, import, and export of drones in India. It vests extensive regulatory powers in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), mandates compulsory registration and certification, introduces licensing for remote pilots, and prescribes criminal penalties for violations. Unlike earlier rules, the Bill adopts a penal approach, signalling a shift from facilitative regulation to enforcement-oriented governance. While the intent is to ensure aviation safety and national security, concerns arise regarding proportionality, over-criminalisation, and its impact on innovation and recreational drone use.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Bill employs formal statutory and regulatory terminology, reinforcing its legislative character:
• Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS): Defined as an aircraft operating without a human pilot onboard, inclusive of associated systems and components.
• Statutory Prohibition: The Bill provides that *no person shall own or operate a drone unless registered* and issued a Unique Identification Number (UIN) by the competent authority.
• Type Certification: Mandatory certification by the DGCA as a condition precedent for sale or operation, ensuring airworthiness and compliance with safety standards.
• Licensing Regime: Operation permitted only by individuals holding a valid Remote Pilot Certificate, issued by authorised training entities.
• Airspace Classification: Segregation into green, yellow, and red zones, determining permissible operations and clearance requirements.
• Penal Consequences: Certain offences are declared cognizable and non-compoundable, attracting imprisonment up to three years, monetary penalties, seizure, and confiscation of drones.
The use of such legal language underscores the State’s intent to confer enforceable obligations rather than mere administrative guidelines.
The Proof
The legal validity of the Bill rests on constitutional and statutory authority under Entry 29 of List I (Union List) relating to airways and aircraft. The Bill provides:
1. Regulatory Empowerment: DGCA is authorised to supervise registration, certification, inspection, enforcement, and adjudication.
2. Enforcement Mechanism: Authorities may conduct searches, seize drones, and initiate prosecution for violations.
3. Liability Framework: Mandatory third-party insurance ensures compensation for damage to persons or property, with claims adjudicated by designated tribunals.
4. National Security Safeguards: Prohibitions on carriage of hazardous payloads and operations in restricted zones reinforce public safety concerns.
These provisions collectively form the evidentiary and legal basis for strict drone regulation in Indian airspace.
Case Laws
As the Bill is yet to be enacted, direct judicial precedents are unavailable. However, relevant analogous jurisprudence provides interpretative guidance:
•Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly v. State of Maharashtra (2023): The Bombay High Court notably quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against drone operators, ruling that they had valid prior authorization from the police for their operations during a high-profile visit, which was sufficient compliance with the existing rules. This case established the importance of obtaining and having documentation of proper authorization.
State of Punjab v. Unknown (2021): The Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed the serious security concerns posed by drones, particularly their use for cross-border smuggling. The court emphasized the urgent need for strict surveillance and robust policy enforcement to counter such threats to national security.
These cases indicate that courts may scrutinise the Drone Bill for procedural safeguards, proportionality of punishment, and absence of arbitrariness
Conclusion
The Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive evolution in India’s approach to drone governance by elevating regulation from delegated legislation to a comprehensive statutory framework. Its emphasis on safety, security, and accountability is legally justifiable given the potential risks associated with unmanned aviation. However, the Bill’s criminalisation of regulatory breaches, broad enforcement powers, and limited differentiation between commercial, recreational, and research use raise legitimate concerns.
For the law to be effective and future-ready, it must balance regulatory control with technological innovation, incorporate graded penalties, and provide clear procedural protections. A consultative and proportionate approach will ensure that India achieves both airspace security and sustainable growth of its drone industry.
