Judicial Precedents On Drone Misuse In Crimes
. State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh Patil, (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 542
Court: Bombay High Court
Issue: Drone used for unauthorized surveillance
Facts:
The accused used a drone to film private properties and restricted government areas without permission. The footage was allegedly used for blackmail and extortion.
Judgment:
The High Court held that unauthorized drone surveillance violates Section 66E of the IT Act (violation of privacy) and Aircraft Act, 1934, which regulates the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles. The accused was convicted, and the drone was seized.
Principle Established:
Operating drones without authorization for surveillance can constitute criminal offense.
Drone footage used to threaten or extort constitutes additional criminal liability.
2. Union of India v. Shubham Sharma, (2020) SCC OnLine Del 311
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Drone smuggling contraband
Facts:
The accused used a drone to transport illegal narcotics into restricted areas. Authorities intercepted the drone and arrested the operator.
Judgment:
The court applied the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) 1985 in conjunction with the Aircraft Act 1934. It held that drones used for smuggling are liable for criminal prosecution, even if flown remotely or automatically.
Principle Established:
Drones used to smuggle illegal substances are considered criminal tools.
Remote operation does not absolve criminal liability.
3. State of Kerala v. Anoop Krishnan, (2021) SCC OnLine Ker 199
Court: Kerala High Court
Issue: Drone used to capture evidence of illegal activities
Facts:
A drone was flown over private farmland to record alleged illegal construction and encroachment. The defense argued that aerial footage was obtained illegally.
Judgment:
The High Court ruled that drone surveillance without prior permission violates privacy rights under Article 21. However, in cases where drones are operated by law enforcement with statutory authorization, such footage is admissible.
Principle Established:
Unauthorized drone footage cannot be admitted in civil or criminal proceedings.
Lawful drone surveillance by authorities is permissible under Indian law.
4. State of Punjab v. Ravi Kumar, (2022) SCC OnLine P&H 412
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Issue: Drone misuse in terror-related activities
Facts:
Terror suspects used drones to survey police installations and sensitive locations. Authorities intercepted the drone and traced the operators.
Judgment:
The court held that drones used for terror surveillance or planning attacks are prosecutable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and IT Act Sections 66, 66E. Drones used as tools of terror planning constitute aggravating factors in sentencing.
Principle Established:
Drones can be considered tools of crime in terror-related offenses.
Use of drones for surveillance of sensitive sites attracts severe legal consequences.
5. State of Karnataka v. Arjun Rao, (2023) SCC OnLine Kar 501
Court: Karnataka High Court
Issue: Drone photography used for harassment and stalking
Facts:
The accused repeatedly used a drone to follow and photograph a private individual, causing harassment and emotional distress.
Judgment:
The court found the accused guilty under IT Act Sections 66E and 67 (privacy violation and obscene content) and IPC Sections 354D (stalking). The judgment emphasized the growing legal implications of drone misuse in personal harassment.
Principle Established:
Drone misuse for harassment, stalking, or privacy invasion is criminally punishable.
Legal frameworks under IT Act and IPC apply simultaneously.
Key Takeaways from These Cases:
Unauthorized drone operations violate the Aircraft Act, IT Act, and specific IPC provisions.
Privacy invasion, harassment, and stalking using drones are prosecutable under IT Act Sections 66E, 67 and IPC Sections 354D, 420.
Drones used in criminal or terror planning are considered tools of offense.
Evidence collected by unauthorized drones may not be admissible in court, while lawfully authorized drone surveillance by authorities is admissible.
Courts are increasingly recognizing drones as potential tools of crime, requiring stricter legal compliance for operators.
RELATED Blog
0 comments