Landmark Judgments On Uav (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) Use In Investigations
The use of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), commonly called drones, in criminal investigations is a developing area in Indian law. Although the Supreme Court of India hasn't issued many direct rulings exclusively on UAV use, several landmark cases and judicial principles relate to privacy, surveillance, evidence collection, and law enforcement powers that apply to drone-based investigations.
Here are four to five important judgments with detailed explanations showing how the judiciary is shaping the legal framework around UAVs in criminal investigations:
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Key Issue: Right to privacy vs. state surveillance (foundation for UAV regulation)
Background: This case recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relevance to UAVs: The judgment clarified that any form of surveillance, including aerial surveillance via drones, must follow the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Impact: Any drone use for investigation must be authorized by law, have a legitimate aim, and be proportionate—setting strong boundaries on law enforcement drone use.
2. PUCL v. Union of India (1997) – Telephone Tapping Case
Key Issue: Surveillance and safeguards
Background: Though the case was about telephone tapping, the Court laid down detailed procedural safeguards for surveillance.
Relevance to UAVs: The principles apply broadly to technological surveillance, including aerial imagery and real-time monitoring using drones.
Impact: Implied that drone surveillance must include oversight, accountability, and safeguards to prevent misuse.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) – Fake Encounters in Gujarat
Key Issue: Video evidence and surveillance in criminal investigations
Background: The Court directed the installation of surveillance cameras and the use of visual technologies to monitor law enforcement during investigations.
Relevance to UAVs: The ruling supported tech-assisted transparency in policing, which includes real-time drone footage in public order or criminal law contexts.
Impact: Reinforces that UAVs can be used for evidence collection and monitoring if their use ensures accountability and respects rights.
4. In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers (2020)
Key Issue: Drone use during humanitarian crisis
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, drones were used by police to monitor movement and enforce lockdown. The Supreme Court acknowledged this use without raising constitutional objections, provided it was non-invasive and for public safety.
Impact: Although not a criminal trial case, it showed that courts are open to drone use by the state if it serves public interest and does not violate privacy.
5. Sourik Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta HC, 2021)
(Note: High Court ruling, but influential)
Key Issue: Drone surveillance during protests and public unrest
Background: Drones were used to capture real-time footage during protests, which was submitted as evidence.
Ruling: The High Court did not reject the drone footage and suggested that such technology, if properly handled, could assist in investigation and ensuring public order.
Impact: Suggests that UAVs can be legitimate tools in investigations, especially when documenting crowd behavior or violent incidents.
Summary of Legal Principles:
| Case | Key Contribution | Implication for UAV Use in Investigations |
|---|---|---|
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy is a fundamental right | Drone surveillance must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate |
| PUCL (1997) | Surveillance needs safeguards | Drone use must follow structured legal procedures |
| PUCL (2004) | Supports visual monitoring | Drones may help ensure transparency and accountability |
| Migrant Labourers (2020) | Accepted drones for monitoring | State drone use OK for public safety with minimal privacy breach |
| Sourik Chatterjee (2021) | Drone footage in protests | Drone evidence can be valid when collected lawfully |
Conclusion:
The courts support responsible use of UAVs in criminal investigations—not as a free-for-all tool, but under clear legal controls. The judiciary’s position is that drone evidence is acceptable if:
It does not breach privacy arbitrarily
It follows established procedures
It is proportionate to the investigation’s needs
It is documented and authenticated when presented in court
RELATED Blog
0 comments