Drone Misuse Offences
π What is Drone Misuse?
Drone misuse refers to unauthorized, illegal, or harmful use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles - UAVs) which may include:
Flying drones without permission in restricted or no-fly zones
Violating privacy by spying or capturing images/videos without consent
Endangering public safety or security (e.g., flying near airports or military zones)
Using drones for smuggling contraband or surveillance by criminals/terrorists
Causing nuisance, damage, or injury via drone operations
π Legal Framework Governing Drone Use & Misuse in India
1. The Drone Rules, 2021 (Ministry of Civil Aviation)
Regulate drone manufacturing, operation, and certification.
Specify No Drone Zones (near airports, international borders, strategic locations).
Require Unique Identification Number (UIN) and Unmanned Aircraft Operator Permit (UAOP) for certain drones.
Mandate pre-authorization for drone flights in restricted zones.
Prohibit drones over crowds or critical infrastructure without permission.
2. Aircraft Act, 1934 & Aircraft Rules, 1937
Empower DGCA to regulate all aircraft including drones.
Unauthorized drone flights can be treated as offences under this Act.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66E)
Penalizes violation of privacy by capturing images of a personβs private area without consent.
4. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions
Section 268: Public nuisance
Section 354C: Voyeurism (using drones for spying)
Section 427: Mischief causing damage
Section 188: Disobedience to order promulgated by public servant (for violating drone rules)
βοΈ Key Case Laws on Drone Misuse in India
1. Union of India v. Shivani Raj (Delhi Police FIR, 2022)
π Facts:
A private citizen operated a drone near the Indira Gandhi International Airport without permission.
The drone was intercepted, and a FIR was registered under the Aircraft Act and IT Act.
π§ββοΈ Outcome:
Delhi Police issued a warning and seized the drone.
Person was charged under Aircraft Act for unauthorized drone flying and Section 188 IPC.
β Importance:
Established strict enforcement near airports.
Highlighted public safety risks of drones near flight paths.
2. State v. Unknown Person (Mumbai Case, 2021) β Smuggling via Drone
π Facts:
Mumbai Customs caught a drone attempting to smuggle contraband cigarettes across customs boundary.
Drone operator fled.
π§ββοΈ Legal Action:
Case registered under Customs Act and Aircraft Act.
Police investigation ongoing to catch culprits.
β Significance:
Showed criminal misuse of drones for smuggling.
Urged authorities to enhance drone tracking and interception.
3. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka (2023)
π Facts:
A local politician accused of flying drone to spy on political opponents and capture videos without consent.
Victim filed complaint under IT Act Section 66E (privacy violation) and IPC Section 354C (voyeurism).
π§ββοΈ Court Decision:
Karnataka police registered FIR.
Court ordered seizure of drone and initiated inquiry into misuse.
β Importance:
Recognition of drone misuse for political espionage.
Enforced privacy laws on drone operators.
4. Anil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras HC, 2021)
π Facts:
Man flew drone over crowded public rally without authorization.
Police detained the accused for causing public nuisance and endangering public safety.
π§ββοΈ Court Ruling:
Court upheld police action.
Reiterated that flying drones over crowds without clearance violates Aircraft Rules and IPC Section 268 (public nuisance).
β Impact:
Strong judicial backing for crowd safety.
Deterrent for reckless drone flying.
5. DRDO v. Unidentified Persons (Supreme Court PIL, 2020)
π Background:
Several reports of drones spotted near defense research installations (DRDO facilities) in Hyderabad.
Possible espionage attempt.
π§ββοΈ Court Directions:
Supreme Court urged government to strengthen drone surveillance and no-fly zone enforcement.
Recommended drone detection radars and tougher penalties.
β Importance:
Raised national security concerns.
Highlighted need for technical countermeasures.
6. Pooja Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow Sessions Court, 2022)
π Facts:
Drone used by stalker to capture images/videos of a woman without her consent.
FIR lodged under Section 66E IT Act and IPC Sections 354C, 509 (insult to modesty).
π§ββοΈ Judgment:
Court convicted accused, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Ordered confiscation of drone.
β Significance:
Landmark case for privacy violation via drone.
Established deterrence against voyeurism using drones.
π Summary of Penalties Under Drone Misuse Cases
| Offence | Relevant Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized flying near airport | Aircraft Act & Section 188 IPC | Fine + imprisonment up to 1 year |
| Privacy violation by drone | IT Act Section 66E & IPC Section 354C | Up to 3 years imprisonment + fine |
| Public nuisance (crowds, rallies) | IPC Section 268 | Up to 6 months imprisonment or fine |
| Smuggling via drone | Customs Act & Aircraft Act | Varies; imprisonment + heavy fines |
| Obstruction of public order | IPC Section 188 | Fine or imprisonment up to 6 months |
β Conclusion
India has a robust legal framework to deal with drone misuse, but enforcement and awareness remain key challenges. Courts have been proactive in:
Penalizing unauthorized drone flights near airports and restricted areas,
Upholding privacy rights against voyeuristic use of drones,
Supporting police actions against public nuisance caused by reckless drone use,
Highlighting national security concerns related to drone espionage and smuggling.
As drones become more widespread, the government is strengthening rules, tracking technology, and penalties to curb misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments