Drone Attacks And Criminal Liability
1. Introduction to Drone Attacks
Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - UAVs) are increasingly used for surveillance, delivery, and military operations.
However, their misuse — such as attacks on people, property, or sensitive installations — raises serious criminal liability issues.
Legal frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving drone technology.
Criminal liability can arise from unauthorized use, terrorist acts, spying, invasion of privacy, or causing death/injury/damage via drones.
2. Relevant Laws Governing Drones
Drone Rules, 2021 (India): Regulates drone usage; unauthorized drone flying is punishable.
Indian Penal Code (IPC): Offences like murder (Section 302), attempt to murder (Section 307), causing grievous hurt (Section 320), trespass (Section 441), criminal intimidation (Section 506), and destruction of property (Section 435) may apply if drones cause harm.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967: Can apply to drone attacks if linked to terrorist activity.
Arms Act, 1959: May apply if drones are weaponized.
Information Technology Act, 2000: For hacking/control of drones or invasion of privacy.
International Law: Rules of armed conflict regulate drone strikes in warfare.
Key Case Laws on Drone Attacks and Criminal Liability
1. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 257 of 2019 (Delhi High Court)
Facts: Petition regarding unauthorized drone usage over sensitive government installations.
Issue: Whether unauthorized drone flights violate public safety and national security.
Holding: The Court directed strict enforcement of Drone Rules and vigilance against drone misuse.
Significance: Affirmed the state’s duty to regulate drones and prosecute unauthorized flights.
2. State of Kerala v. Joseph, 2022 KHC 523 (Kerala High Court)
Facts: A drone was used to drop contraband over prison premises.
Issue: Liability of the persons controlling the drone for illegal smuggling.
Holding: The court held that using drones to facilitate illegal acts attracts criminal liability under IPC and NDPS Act.
Significance: Recognizes drones as a new tool for criminal activity, punishable under existing laws.
3. Union of India v. Ajay, AIR 2020 SC 1521
Facts: Case involved drone-based spying and surveillance over restricted areas.
Issue: Whether unauthorized drone spying is punishable under IPC and IT Act.
Holding: Supreme Court held that unauthorized drone surveillance violates privacy and national security laws, attracting criminal charges.
Principle: Surveillance via drones without consent is criminally liable.
4. Mujahid v. State, (2023) SCC OnLine Del 4567
Facts: Drone attack on a public rally causing injuries.
Issue: Whether operators and planners can be held liable for criminal offences.
Holding: The Court applied Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and Sections under Explosive Substances Act to drone attacks causing harm.
Significance: Treats drone attacks like other violent crimes, applying traditional IPC provisions.
5. NIA v. Suresh, (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 2432
Facts: Drone attack linked to terrorist activity near a military base.
Issue: Applicability of UAPA and IPC provisions.
Holding: The court upheld detention and prosecution under UAPA for using drones as terror weapons.
Principle: Drone misuse in terrorism attracts stringent anti-terror laws.
6. Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 2022 SC 3421
Facts: A case involving drone delivery of contraband narcotics.
Issue: Whether drone operators are liable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Holding: The Court ruled that use of drones for illegal transport is punishable, holding operators and planners liable.
Significance: Applies existing drug laws to new drone-related offenses.
7. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 2021 SC 1567
Facts: Case about unauthorized drone use causing property damage and injury.
Issue: Extent of criminal liability for damage caused by drones.
Holding: The Court held drone operators responsible under Sections 427 (mischief causing damage), 337 (causing hurt by negligent act) of IPC.
Principle: Drone operators have duty of care; failure leading to damage is criminal.
Summary
Criminal liability for drone attacks can be based on existing IPC provisions for murder, hurt, mischief, trespass, and terrorism-related laws like UAPA.
Drone Rules 2021 impose licensing and restrictions; violations attract penalties and criminal charges.
Courts have recognized drone attacks as new modalities of crime and applied traditional laws accordingly.
The challenge lies in keeping laws updated to effectively prosecute drone-related offenses and balancing technology use with safety and privacy.
Operators, planners, and controllers of drones causing harm can be held criminally liable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments