Technology Law Analysis: Grounded or Soaring? Inside the Draft Drone Bill 2025

Grounded or Soaring? Inside the Draft Drone Bill 2025

• Applicability expanded to foreign nationals and all entities involved in the UAS supply chain.
• Prohibition on ownership or operation of unregistered UAS.
• Certified drone pilots required for all operations, with no exemptions for non-commercial use.
• Introduction of stricter penalties.
• Grant of broad rule-making powers to the Central Government.

On September 16, 2025, the Ministry of Civil Aviation released the draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025¹ (“Drones Bill”) for stakeholder feedback and comments. The Drone Bill aims to promote and regulate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) and address matters incidental to their operation.

With this proposed legislation, the government seeks to overhaul the current regulatory framework governing UAS, currently administered under the Drone Rules, 2021 (“Drone Rules”) along with subsequent amendments. The Drone Rules were initially framed under the Aircraft Act, 1934 (“Aircraft Act”), and are currently governed by its successor legislation, the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (“Vayuyan Act”), which repealed and replaced the Aircraft Act.

The Drones Bill represents a paradigm shift in the regulation of civil UAS, transitioning to a comprehensive, standalone statute. Once enacted, it will supersede the Drone Rules.

We have analysed some of the key provisions of the draft of the Drones Bill below.

Key Provisions of the draft Drones Bill

Applicability

One of the key features of the Drones Bill is its significantly broader scope of applicability compared to the existing Drone Rules. The Drones Bill applies to the following:

• citizens of India;
• citizens of any other country;
• any person owning or possessing, or engaged in exporting, importing, designing, developing, manufacturing, trading, leasing, operating, training, transferring, or maintaining an unmanned aircraft system in India;
• unmanned aircraft systems that are being operated for the time being, in or over India; and
• unmanned aircraft systems registered in India and wherever they may be owned/ operated.²

The Drone Bill is proposed to apply not only to Indian citizens, but also to foreign nationals. It further extends coverage to any person involved in the export, import, design, development, manufacture, trade or training of a UAS within India. Additionally, the Drones Bill would also apply to UAS that are registered in India, regardless of where they are owned or operated globally.

This marks a significant departure from the Drone Rules, which did not expressly provide for extra-territorial applicability to foreign nationals or to individuals and or to Indian-registered drones owned or operated outside India, an oversight now addressed by the Drones Bill. Moreover, the Drones Bill expands its applicability to include stakeholders across the broader UAS supply chain such as those engaged in the export, import, design, development, manufacture, trade, or training related to UAS.

Exemptions

The exemptions under the Drones Bill largely mirrors those provided in the Drone Rules. As before, UAS operated by the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force are excluded from the applicability of the proposed rules. Additionally, the Drones Bill, slightly extends this exemption to cover the Central Armed Police Forces and other Indian armed forces. While these exempted UAS do not fall under the regulatory framework of the proposed Drones Bill, their registration would be governed separately by the respective administrative ministries.³

Additionally, the Drones Bill continues to exclude UAS with an all-up weight exceeding 500 kilograms, maintaining consistency with the Drone Rules.⁴

Registration of UAS & Type Certificate

Under the Drone Rules, the registration of a UAS and the acquisition of a Unique Identification Number (“UIN”) were mandatory prerequisites for operation, unless exempted. The responsibility for securing the UIN rested with the operator of the UAS, and it may be argued that such responsibility did not lie entirely on the manufacturer.⁵

The Drones Bill introduces a notable shift in the compliance requirement as it states that no person may own or operate a UAS unless it is registered and a UIN has been obtained. Moreover, it prohibits the sale, purchase, or transfer (whether online or offline) of any UAS that is not registered and does not have a UIN.⁶

This change has significant implications as unlike the Drone Rules, which placed the compliance burden solely on the operator, the Drones Bill suggests that the onus may now shift to the manufacturer or seller even prior to actual operation of the UAS. Since a UAS cannot be owned, let alone operated, without a UIN, manufacturers or distributors may be required to ensure that registration is completed and a UIN is obtained before a UAS enters the market.

This marks an additional layer of compliance for upstream actors in the UAS supply chain and reflects the Bill’s broader regulatory objective to ensure traceability throughout the lifecycle of a UAS.

Mandatory Safety and Security Features

The Drones Bill places an additional compliance burden on manufacturers and other stakeholders in the supply chain. It prohibits the manufacture, assembly, offer for sale, transfer, or operation, or even causing the operation, of any UAS that does not incorporate the mandatory safety and security features (“Safety Standards”) as prescribed by the Central Government, unless the UAS is expressly exempted from such requirements.⁷

The Drones Bill does not provide any exemption or guidance based on the weight, size, or intended use of the UAS from complying with the Safety Standards. This approach raises concerns, as applying the same Safety Standards across all UAS categories, regardless of whether they are intended for recreational, commercial, or industrial use, may result in disproportionate regulation. This provision warrants consideration to calibrate safety requirements appropriately depending on the type of UAS and their risk profiles, while still maintaining safety and security standards.

Overregulation of Non-Commercial Use

The Drones Bill imposes a universal requirement that all UAS must beoperated by certified drone pilots, unless specifically exempted.⁸ However, no exemptions have been provided based on UAS weight, category, or intended use – including for recreational, research, or development activities. As a result, even hobbyists, students, and young enthusiasts flying small drones in controlled environments may be required to undergo formal pilot certification.

By failing to distinguish between high-risk commercial operations and low-risk or experimental use, the Drones Bill risks creating burdens that could deter widespread engagement with drone technology at the grassroots level in India.

Compounding this issue, the Drones Bill also removes key exemptions previously available under the Drone Rules. Notably, the Drone Rules allowed research, development, and testing activities to be conducted without obtaining a UIN or type certification.⁹ The Drones Bill does not carry forward these carve-outs, thereby placing R&D-focused entities and start-ups under the same compliance obligations as commercial operators.

Without tailored exemptions, manufacturers and innovators – especially early-stage companies – may face increased costs and regulatory hurdles, even when building prototypes that are not intended for sale or public operation. The final version of the Bill would benefit from exemptions, particularly for non-commercial, educational, and research oriented UAS activities.

Increased Liability and Insurance Requirements

The Drones Bill establishes a compulsory insurance and compensation system, requiring all UAS operators to have third-party insurance policy that is in tandem with the requirements that may be laid down by the Central Government in this regard.¹⁰ The Bill expands the meaning of “accident”¹¹ to cover not only deaths or serious injuries but also damage to property.¹² This means compensation can be claimed not only by those injured or their representatives but also by owners of damaged property.¹³

While this is a welcome change offering greater protection to affected parties, it increases operating costs for UAS operators and exposes them to claims handled by claims tribunals. However, the government may exempt certain types of drones from these requirements through official notifications.

Claims Tribunal and Expert Examiner

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, currently serves as the claims tribunals for adjudicating compensation in cases involving the death or bodily injury of persons, or damage to third-party property, arising out of the use of UAS.¹⁴ While this arrangement provides an initial legal mechanism for redressal, the designation of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the forum for drone-related incidents may not be ideal. The nature of accidents and liabilities involving drones entails complex technical and operational aspects that differ significantly from conventional motor vehicle cases.

Given the specialised knowledge required to assess drone operations, compliance obligations, and the enhanced penal provisions under the proposed Drones Bill, there is a strong case for establishing a dedicated or specialised tribunal to handle such matters. This would ensure more efficient and technically informed adjudication.

However, the Drones Bill seeks to bridge the gap until the formation of a dedicated tribunal by designating an expert agency to advise courts and relevant authorities on drone-related issues. This is a progressive step towards ensuring access to the existing tribunal to specialised technical expertise during adjudication and legal proceedings especially considering the enhanced penal provisions under the Drones Bill.¹⁵

Enhanced Penal Provisions

While the Drones Bill allows for compounding of certain penal offences, it also introduces significantly harsher penal provisions, with imprisonment ranging from three months to three years or fine which may extend up to 1 lakh or with both.¹⁶ Notably, some of these offences may be triggered by procedural or technical non-compliances that do not result in any actual harm, loss, or injury.¹⁷

This marks a sharp departure from the approach taken under the Drone Rules, which largely relied on monetary penalties for regulatory violations¹⁸, reserving imprisonment only for more serious offenses or contraventions.¹⁹

The criminalisation of lesser, non-malicious infractions in the Drones Bill is likely to have a major impact on the industry considering the nascent and innovation-driven nature of the UAS ecosystem in India. Such a punitive framework risks deterring participation, particularly by small businesses, start-ups, and individual operators.

It would be pertinent to see whether the final draft of the Drones Bill aligns with the Government’s broader legislative direction, particularly the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, which aims to decriminalise minor offences across sectors and promote ease of doing business.

Delegated Legislation

A substantial portion of the Bill’s framework relies on delegated legislation, leaving certain operational and commercial aspects to be determined through future rulemaking. The Drones Bill empowers the Central Government to frame rules governing almost every dimension of UAS activity including the classification and categorisation of UAS, type certification standards, safety and maintenance requirements, pilot licensing and training, authorisation of training organisations, record-keeping protocols, operational limits (altitude, distance, weather, and performance parameters), and payload restrictions.²⁰ While such flexibility allows the regulatory regime to adapt dynamically to technological progress, it simultaneously introduces a degree of legal and regulatory uncertainty for industry participants.

Further, the Drones Bill extends the government’s rule-making power to the economic regulation of drone services covering sector fares, fees, tariffs, and related charges.²¹ Until now, commercial drone operations in India have functioned within a largely unregulated market framework, fostering innovation and competition. The proposed provision, however, opens the door to direct Government intervention in pricing and market dynamics, which could have far-reaching implications for the ease of doing business in this sector.

Conclusion

To keep pace with the swift advancements in UAS technology, the government has successively introduced several regulations including the proposed Drones Bill. Although these efforts demonstrate an intent to strengthen oversight on this sector and align with global best practices, the frequent introduction of new frameworks and stricter compliance obligations could lead to regulatory fatigue and uncertainty for industry stakeholders.

This is particularly noteworthy given that the earlier Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2021 (“UAS Rules”) were widely perceived by stakeholders as being overly restrictive. The regime involved extensive paperwork, required prior approvals for almost every drone flight, and designated only a limited number of “green zones” where operations were freely permitted. Responding to these concerns and stakeholder feedback, the Government decided to repeal the UAS Rules and replace them with the Drone Rules – a more liberalised and facilitative framework that significantly simplified procedures, reduced compliance burdens, and was widely appreciated for encouraging innovation and investment in the drone ecosystem.

Hence, a more pragmatic path might be to refine and reinforce the existing legal framework rather than create an entirely new one since the existing statutory tools already provide the government with ample authority to amend, expand, and strengthen the existing regulatory regime as needed.

By pursuing a consultative, incremental approach to reform, the government could ensure continuity, minimise disruption, and maintain the liberalised environment that has underpinned the sector’s growth. Moreover, building institutional capacity — such as specialised tribunals and expert advisory bodies — may yield more tangible benefits to the industry.

Authors

Uttara Jhaveri, Tanya Kukade and Vaibhav Parikh

You can direct your queries or comments to the relevant member.

¹Accessible at https://www.civilaviation.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-09/Draft%20Civil%20Drone%20%28Promotion%20and%20Regulation%29%20Bill%202025.pdf

²Section 2 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

³Section 2(2) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁴Section 2(3) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁵Section 6 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁶Section 6(2) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁷Section 8 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁸Section 23 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

⁹PART VIII of the Drone Rules, 2021.

¹⁰Section 9 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹¹accident means any accident associated with the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, where any damage is caused to any property, or where the Unmanned Aircraft System sustains significant damage or goes missing or is completely inaccessible.

¹²Section 3(1)(b) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹³Section 13 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹⁴Section 12 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹⁵Section 41 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹⁶Section 27(8) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹⁷Section 27 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

¹⁸Rule 50 of the Drone Rules, 2021.

¹⁹Section 25 of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024.

²⁰Section 49 of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

²¹Section 45(1)(aa) of the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025.

Disclaimer

The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.

This hotline does not constitute a legal opinion and may contain information generated using various artificial intelligence (AI) tools or assistants, including but not limited to our in-house tool, NaiDA. We strive to ensure the highest quality and accuracy of our content and services. Nishith Desai Associates is committed to the responsible use of AI tools, maintaining client confidentiality, and adhering to strict data protection policies to safeguard your information.

This hotline provides general information existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances. This hotline does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements.

This is not a spam email. You have received this email because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a email cannot be considered spam if it contains the sender’s contact information, which this email does. In case this email doesn’t concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.