India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Im-

peratives
Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan and Rahul Krishna

Synopsis
A study of India’s regulatory landscape for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and the role
it plays in shaping global governance structures. This study analyzes the scope of the
regulations developed by India’s administration with regards to civilian and commercial
usage of drones. It also contributes to existing literature on the subject of drones and
outlines the evolution of India’s policy highlighting areas with suggestions for improve-
ment. Specific suggestions for possible mechanisms for ascertaining cases of trespass
by UAVs are also discussed as an effective mechanism to ensure drone operators re-
spect the rights of others.

Cite as:
Rajagopalan, R.P., & Krishna, R. (2019). India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Im-
peratives. ICAO Scientific Review: Analytics and Management Research, 1, 53-68.
Retrieved from: http://isr.icao.int/amr/Volume01/v1p053-068Rajagopalan5144.pdf
 Volume 1, 2019

ARTICLE TITLE
Rajeswari Pillai Observer Research Foundation rajeswarirajagopalan@gmail.com
Rajagopalan*

Rahul Krishna Delhi Technological University rkrishna12345@gmail.com

*Corresponding Author
Paper Category

☒ Position Paper ☐ Perspective Ideas ☐ Original Research

☐ Case Studies ☐ Technical Briefs/Notes ☐ SARPS Review
☐ Business Technology ☐ Student Paper ☐ Review Paper
Reviews

Strategic Key Initiatives Focus Areas Global Programmes

Objectives
☐ Aviation Safety ☒ No Country Left ☒ Improving ICAO’s ☐ Next Generation
Behind SARP and Policy Aviation Profes-
Development sionals

☐ Air Navigation ☐ Aviation Devel- ☐ Strengthening ☐ Technical Cooper-

Capacity and opment and ICAO ICAO’s Regional ation Perfor-
Efficiency World Aviation Presence mance
Forum
☐ Security & ☐ Performance- ☐ Global planning ☐ Global Aviation
Facilitation based Navigation and Strengthening Training
Partnerships

☐ Economic De- ☐ Pandemic Re- ☐ Implementation ☐ State Action Plans

velopment of sponse Coordi- Support & Mobiliz- for Aviation CO
2

Air Transport nation ing Resources Reduction

☐ Environmental ☐ Women in Avia- ☐ Effectively Re- ☐ CORSIA Initiative

Protection tion sponding to Avia-
tion Emergencies
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

ABSTRACT
Aim/Purpose: This study analyzes the scope of the regulations developed by India’s administration
with regards to civilian and commercial usage of drones. It also addresses the proposed
mechanism to implement the regulations. The paper addresses two noteworthy ques-
tions that need to be answered. The first being whether regulatory measures are essen-
tial for the establishment of the operation of drones and secondly, to address questions
of privacy and the conflict of trespass.
Context: The use of drones for a variety of applications in civil, commercial and military do-
mains has become common. Nonetheless, the policies and regulations that are required
to ensure safe and secure drone operations are struggling to keep apace of drone tech-
nological developments. The Indian administration in December of 2018 released a
policy that legalized the operation of drones by civilians.
Method: The policy released by the Indian civil aviation administration, the Directorate General
of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is analyzed along with the announced implementation plan
to introduce these policy changes by the administration. The authors raise important
questions related to issues of trespass and incursions of privacy because both subjects
need more attention under the newly suggested policy. Intrusions by UAVs are divided
into two categories, those committed by civilians and those committed by the govern-
ment. The authors analyze India’s legislation on privacy which may be applied to UAVs
and study the gaps in the regulations. The authors attempt to propose alternative solu-
tions to address these issues.
Contribution: The article contributes to existing literature on the subject of drones and outlines the
evolution of India’s policy highlighting areas and making suggestions for improvement.
The article also contributes to the global governance debates on UAVs, including those
led by ICAO identifying some of the issues faced by emerging players in developing
economies trying to harness the potential of drones.
Findings: The study proposes several best practices for operators to avoid privacy centric con-
flicts while operating drones. The study asserts that the data collection processes by
UAVs should be guided by the principles enshrined in data protection laws such as the
laws of the General Data Protection Regulations of the EU. The study takes stock of
the different positions of countries in respect to drone policies. The study also explores
opportunities for cooperation in the governance of drones and for India’s potential to
assume a more prominent role as a leading regulator in the global effort to address
global imperatives.
Recommendations: On the domestic front, the study argues that India needs to assume a leading role and
create a set of best practices for drone operators that address issues of privacy and
trespass as well as provide a framework to limit the usage of drones for government
surveillance. On a global level, the authors argue that India can contribute to the crea-
tion of global rules of the road for UAVs and work with other nations towards the
standardization of requirements and their enforcement.

Keywords: Drone Regulations, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs),
Commercial Drones and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)

54
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

INTRODUCTION
Technology has brought about changes to all aspects of human endeavor and innovations, be it the
way we conduct business affairs or how wars are waged. Drones also known as Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs) or Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs) are embodiments of these changes. Major mil-
itaries around the world have been using drones for a variety of missions to carry out surveillance
and reconnaissance missions. Border patrols have used drones to track enemy movements and to
conduct search and rescue missions for almost two decades. Unarmed drones have been in use by the
US military in Afghanistan since the late 1990s however, the use of drones is not restricted to the
military. Drones are widely used in the civil and commercial sectors and a diverse set of applications.
Drones are being used in the developmental sector for aerial mapping and to monitor critical infra-
structure areas such as ports and power plants (Ideas for India, 2017; Padmanabhan, 2017). Addi-
tionally, the geospatial market has begun to explore the use of drones for activities of surveying,
mining and construction. With activities in these sectors picking up pace, a phenomenal growth in
drone use is expected to occur in the coming years. Ecommerce retailers are also interested in using
drones to carry out home deliveries (Castellano, n.d.). In 2013, Amazon announced its future inten-
tions to use drones to carry out the delivery of packages and confirmed that they have been testing
the feasibility of this undertaking (Murphy, 2015). Investment group Goldman Sachs, predict that the
drone market is on an upward trajectory. In a recent report, Goldman Sachs estimated that global
expenditure on drones is expected to reach US $100 billion by 2020. According to their findings, the
majority of growth in the drone industry will occur in the civil and commercial sectors and the con-
struction industry. Referring to these emerging trends, the Marketing Director at senseFly, a company
producing UAVs for mapping and geospatial surveying, stated has experienced a constant growth in
the field of agriculture and that is going to be one of the strongest sectors in the future. Drones can
also be used in infrastructure and inspection such as bridges, dams and railways across the world and
the figures are astronomical (Dhande, 2016).
India’s ambitions of drone use are fairly large however; drone use is yet to pick up traction. Market
analysis reports project that India will be one of the fastest growing markets for UAVs (PTI, 2018).
BIS Research, a global market intelligence and advisory firm predicts that by 2021, India’s drone
market will be worth approximately $885 million USD and that the global market will reach around
$21 billion USD (PTI, 2018). The potential of drone is being explored by the government as well as
the private sector in six key sectors which could be the driving force behind much of the growth in
India. These key sectors are agriculture, energy, infrastructure, insurance, media and entertainment
and mining. Analysts predict that of these six sectors, agriculture and infrastructure will be the ones
to witness the largest growth in India and on the global level (Faraz, n.d.). However, in many coun-
tries such as in India, the policy framework on drone regulation is still at its infancy. The often-cited
problems facing the industry are the lengthy approval processes and administrative procedures that to
a certain extent have inhibited the prospects of drone use (Stocker, 2017). This article is primarily
focused on India’s policy landscape with respect to drones. It begins with an analysis of existing regu-
lations on the use of drones globally. The second section deals with India’s evolving regulatory
mechanism which is necessary to ensure safe and secure drone usage. This section comprehensively
analyses the recently released guidelines by the Indian government on the operation of drones in
India and the gaps therein. Given the potential and projected growth of drone use in India, it is im-
portant that the newly released document addresses issues of privacy, surveillance and trespass in an
effective manner. The third section considers certain global governance aspects of regulation and
concludes that India will adopt a proactive approach while the rule-making process is underway for
two reasons. Primarily because the global rules of the road will have an impact on how New Delhi’s
security interests are taken into consideration and secondly, India should assume its role as a norm-
shaper and establish its credentials in the realm of global governance of new technologies.

55
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

AN ANALYSIS OF THE INDIAN REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

In August 27, 2018, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the regulating body for civil-
ian airspace in India, released guidelines on the operation of Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs) in the
Indian airspace by civilian and commercial entities. The regulations came into effect starting on De-
cember 1, 2018 are a welcome change from the DGCA’s earlier approach of prohibiting non-
governmental entities from flying UAVs in the Indian airspace. The document is also viewed in a
positive and effective light as it is expected to fill a significant regulation void in India’s management
and implementation of drone regulation. The “Requirements for Operation of Civil Remotely Pi-
loted Aircraft Systems” circular was published after several draft circulars issued by the DGCA were
rejected. After announcing the policy, the administration announced that the newly released docu-
ment will be the first of a series of regulations that seeks to tap into the potential of drone usage in
India. The administration created a task force led the Minister of State for Civil Aviation. The mis-
sion of this taskforce is to work on the regulation and promotion of the usage and manufacture of
drones in India and is expected to create further policy documents in the near future which are likely
to delve into the regulation of the operation of autonomous drones Beyond Visual Line of Sight
(BVLOS) and the use of drones in delivery of packages. The formulation of such rules will make
India one of the first countries to adopt regulations on topics such as autonomous and BVLOS
drone operation for large scale commercial use and will allow industry giants to implement UAV
based business models in India (Press Information Bureau, 2018). The Indian government acknowl-
edges the urgency of the issuance of such regulations and has accepted that a comprehensive policy
on drones will require multiple iterations and reviews and improvements (First Post, 2018). The reg-
ulations put forth by the DGCA are a remarkable improvement from the draft guidelines they had
announced in the past (Rajagopalan, 2018).
The circular issued by the DGCA focuses on an infallible and easy to implement model for the gov-
ernance of drones, heeding the issues highlighted by enforcement authorities and security situations
with drones in the past. The policy mentions an online interactive portal called the “Digital Sky Plat-
form”, a pioneering unmanned traffic management system expected to become the primary tool for
regulating the UAV ecosystem in India. The guidelines require that all drones in India, whether indig-
enously manufactured or imported be equipped with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag
and a Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) SIM-card on board. The Government aims
to use the GSM SIM card to link every civilian UAV to its Digital Sky portal in order to enforce a No
permission, No Takeoff (NPNT) policy, ensuring that until the local enforcement body completes
authorization of the operator and the vehicle itself, the drone will not take off. This move is likely to
solve one of the key issues that the Indian police have dealt with in the last few years which is
grounding and identifying unauthorized UAVs. The DGCA has begun registrations on the Digital
Sky Platform, although the No Permission, No Takeoff feature of the platform is yet to be
launched. Every UAV, through its SIM-card is expected to register an electronic signature with the
local Air Traffic Controller (ATC), identifying the owner of the vehicle. The Digital Sky platform is
likely to serve another essential purpose for enforcement authorities – geo-fencing restricted areas.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has designated certain areas including military establishments,
nuclear reactors, dams and other sensitive areas over which drones are prohibited to fly. The portal
marks three color coded zones of green, yellow and red. In Green Zones drone operations are per-
mitted as long as the drone is licensed. Yellow Zones are areas in which drone operations can be
conducted only after permission from all concerned authorities is granted. The permission to fly a
drone will have to be recorded into the portal by the local law enforcement. Red Zones are those
where drone operation is expressly prohibited. These are the establishments covered by the MHA
mentioned above. Drones complying with global manufacturing standards come equipped with a
geo-fencing feature and connecting them to the Digital Sky platform will enable the administration to
activate it and ensure that the zone area codes are followed and that drones cannot enter zones with-
out a license of operation. Digital Sky will have an in-built incident reporting mechanism for all

56
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

drones registered through it, which will encourage insurance service providers to begin covering
drones as well. The circular issued by the DGCA address important aspects on the research and de-
velopment of drones as well. The guidelines lay out a set of manufacturing standards for both do-
mestically produced and imported drones. The DGCA has designated certain test sites in various
areas throughout the country to allow for companies conducting research into UAVs in India to pro-
totype and conduct testing within safe environments and under the supervision of enforcement au-
thorities.

ELEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN DRONE POLICY

While the circular by the DGCA comprehensively addresses several vital questions on the operation
of UAVs in India, there are areas that are directly addressed by the circular mentioned above. A pos-
sible cause for their omission from the circular put forth by the DGCA is that some aspects of the
regulation of drones in the civilian airspace are yet not specific to UAVs or even the civilian airspace
management domain. The next section will deal with these considerations.

The Privacy Question for UAVs

India recently recognized privacy as a constitutional right for citizens. The Supreme Court of India
overturned previous judgements to confer the right to privacy upon the people. The privacy right
covers some aspects of invasion of privacy by drones, highlighted by one of the Supreme Court
judges, who named sanctuary (protection from intrusive observation) as one of the key facets of the
right to privacy (Bhandari, 2017). India is likely to follow in the footsteps of the European Union
when implementing a data protection law similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
set to be discussed as a bill in the Indian Parliament, which upon approval will be implemented as
law. The issue of privacy infringement by drones has incited the DGCA to include a single article,
Article 12.21 in the circular issued by them Article 12.21 states that “RPA operator/remote pilot shall
be liable to ensure that privacy norms of any entity are not compromised in any manner.” There is a
need to elucidate more on the “privacy norms” mentioned in Article 12.21 and to provide more form
of regulation or best practices for compliance with such norms. There is piecemeal regulation of
various steps of collection of data through drones and its subsequent processing or dissemination by
the circular by the DGCA, therefore, there is a need to comprehensively regulate data privacy as a
subject.

Legal Coverage for Privacy in the UAV Domain

The Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008 prohibits the capture of images of the pri-
vate areas of a person. Several UAVs constantly capture video imagery throughout the duration of
their flight and ascertaining the intention to capture such imagery in the court of law will be a diffi-
cult task. Multiple cases of public photography of women in India have been tried under Sections of
the Indian Penal Code concerning “Eve teasing”1 and “outraging the modesty of a woman.” It can
be argued that the proposed Right to Privacy Bill issued in 2011 comes closest to covering the cir-
cumstances of the legality of photographs taken by UAVs by prohibiting the capture of personal
information as well as surveillance of an individual. A distinction could be made on whether the cap-
ture of images of an individual was done on private or public property. Certain countries allow for
the capture of images of individuals on public property. However, the demarcation of private and
public airspace has long been disputed and with the existing case law in countries such as the UK, a

1 Eve teasing is a form of sexual harassment treated as an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

57
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

law based on this distinction may not have any validity for drones at all as without a definition of
private airspace, it shall be difficult to adjudicate whether those photographs were taken from private
or public property by the drone.

Need for Responsible UAV Usage by Operators

The European Union has contemplated applying the principle of proportionality for data collection
to data captured by UAVs (Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, 2015). The principle calls on
operators to ensure that they only collect the data necessary for the intended use of the RPAS. With
more capable sensors and cameras, this principle may be difficult for drone owners to adhere to and
even tougher for authorities to enforce. The Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK, in an
advisory on drones, called on operators to obtain consent from individuals who are likely to be cap-
tured on video during operation (Information Commissioner’s Office, n.d.). This practice could be
adopted in a variety of UAV operations, especially considering the current Visual Line of Sight
(VLOS) limitation in India and in most countries.2 For operations such as aerial photography of
events (a common use in India), explicit consent should be obtained from users, adopting the same
practices as those for digital data collection under data protection laws such as the GDPR. The issue
of privacy is not limited to the collection of data and also extends to the processing and dissemina-
tion of data. The Personal Data Protection Bill in India under Article 2 mandates that the regulations
under the bill will be applicable to the processing of “personal data”. The term “personal data” is
defined primarily on the basis of direct or indirect identification of the person whose data has been
collected, within the Bill. The Bill covers audio and visual data collected by a UAV during its opera-
tion and applies the regulations under the Bill on such data. An aspect of data collection that is often
not touched upon is the acquisition of information on inanimate objects or legal persons. The pro-
posed Indian data protection regulation only covers the data of “natural persons” within its scope.
However, drones can acquire a variety of data about inanimate objects including those of commer-
cial importance. The need for such a discussion may not be immediate; however this is a topic that
will eventually require further attention as the use of UAVs become more pervasive.

Government Surveillance
UAVs provide law enforcement agencies with surveillance capabilities that other technologies are
unable to provide. In India, like many other countries, law enforcement agencies and the government
are not subject to the VLOS restriction that is imposed on civilian-operated drones. UAVs are likely
to be used for mass surveillance rather than a targeted surveillance operation. For example, the
Mumbai Police used drones for surveillance of processions during a major festival held within the
city to ensure safety and control (Patel, 2016). The Karnataka Police became one of the first police
departments in India to acquire their own fleet of high definition recordings and night vision
equipped RPAS. They purchased 12 South Korean-manufactured drones to curb illegal mining activi-
ty in the state (Sputnik News, 2016). The Agra Police announced their intention to buy “drone kill-
ers” to deactivate illegal drones flying over the Taj Mahal. The illegal usage of drones had already
resulted in multiple security breaches at the tourist attraction (Sharma, 2018). In Lucknow, the Uttar
Pradesh Police announced their intention to use killer drones to improve security around the Stat

2Visual Line of Sight has been defined by the circular by the DGCA as “Operation in which the remote pilot
or RPA observer maintains direct unaided visual contact with the remotely piloted aircraft”.

58
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

Legislative Assembly (Times of India , 2018).Assessing permitted limits in government surveillance

operations is an issue.

The Boundaries of “Reasonable” Surveillance

State surveillance has recently become a topic of heated debate in India. It has been questioned in
various policy forums and by members of civil society and the question that arises is the extent to
which surveillance can be conducted to ‘maintain law and order’ at important events. It is vital to
ascertain the extent to which surveillance via UAVs of an individual can be conducted in the absence
of a court mandated infringement on privacy. Law enforcement authorities often argue that UAVs
are an integral asset to effectively maintain order and that in doing so; mass surveillance of some
form is unavoidable. However, how law enforcement authorities choose to view the images captured
by drones may help in making a distinction between what is justified and unjustified surveillance.
When images captured at an event are viewed in order to ensure the prevention of unlawful activities,
this may be considered within the ambit of reasonable surveillance. However, when facial recognition
software is used on video captured by UAVs to establish a “pattern of life”, track the behavior of a
certain individual over a period of time, it may be considered an unreasonable breach of that indi-
vidual’s privacy and require a court order before it is conducted (Rajagopalan, 2018).

Assessing Objectives in the Battle for Personal Liberty

Tests to help determine what is deemed as reasonable surveillance could be derived from an out-
come-based approach. For example, closed circuit cameras that are used in public spaces and at
crowded events do not require a court order to function. Using an outcome-based approach, UAVs
carrying out similar surveillance purposes should also not require a court order. In situations where
the nature of surveillance requires judicial consent, such as listening in on conversations taking place
on private property, law enforcement authorities using UAVs for such surveillance should be required
to follow the procedure used to obtain permission for other means of surveillance for this purpose,
even if UAV technology makes it easier to acquire such information. Threats to the regulation of
privacy concerns from drones for state surveillance come in the approach adopted in forming such
legislation. The policy is usually technology centric rather than harm centric and has largely two
drawbacks. A policy that is technology centric is often hard to scale up with the fast paced changes
taking place in the technological domain with regards to drones. Legislatures are often fighting a con-
stant battle to stay abreast with advancements in technology a harm centric approach on the other
hand, is relatively easier to scale up with the technological curve. Harm centric approaches are often
tougher to initiate as they require introspection to determine morally acceptable actions for each
country. Law enforcement agencies also fear that harm centric approaches may set dangerous prece-
dents because they outline the limits of reason and hence can also be applied to other methods of
surveillance. However, a harm centric approach in most cases is a more direct representation of the
limits of state power that a society allows rather than being a judgement on individual cases of the
use of technology to exercise such power. The second issue with taking a technological centric ap-
proach is the inadvertent limitations imposed on using the same technology in cases. This has oc-
curred in several states in the US, where limitations on drone surveillance and activist lobbying led to
restrictions on aerial surveillance of public events by law enforcement agencies (McNeal, 2014).

59
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

Defining Cases of Trespass

Another significant aspect that has not been well addressed in the current regulation document is
interlinked with the privacy question on whether the issue of determining trespasses for UAVs and
the recourse permissible for intrusions on private property. Trespass in the UAV domain is a unique
issue due to the high maneuverability, size and low-flying nature of most of the UAVs operated at a
large scale for commercial or recreational purposes. The rights of property owners need to be assert-
ed while giving due consideration to the technological ceilings to avoid committing trespass. There is
a need to strike a fine balance between the two. The key issue when it comes to trespass by UAVs is
the determination of the extent to which private property stretches vertically. Before the advent of
aviation, UK common-law prescribed the dictum “ad coelum et ad inferos”, a concept derived from
Roman law, which gave the owner of property the rights over the airspace above and the earth below.
This concept naturally changed with the advent of aviation; however, the limitation of private prop-
erty remained unclear. United States versus Causby at the US Supreme Court was one of the first
cases to set a limit on the extent of private property. The court adjudicated that the airspace above a
minimum safe altitude constituted “public highway and part of the public domain.” In the case of
Bernstein versus Skyviews & General at the England and Wales High Court, the court decided that
private property stretches vertically only so far as is necessary for “ordinary use and enjoyment.” The
latter case is more applicable to drones, despite the subjectivity in the court’s judgement on the re-
striction of private airspace. Torts law in the US also established the principle of enforcing 50 feet
above one’s property as the minimum distance for flight. Any flight below 50 feet of private property
would certainly constitute trespass; however, the above 50 feet restriction is not as easy to ascertain
trespass (Farber, 2017). There can be broadly two approaches to limiting private airspace, especially
for the legal usage of drones. The first approach constitutes limiting private property vertically for all
purposes. It would involve enforcing a specified distance above which the airspace is open to public
use. This would be different for buildings of differing heights. While it is a comprehensive solution
to the question, it would be tough to set an objective limit to airspace. This form of limiting private
airspace puts responsibility on the operators of drones to chart a flight path so that the restriction is
respected. The other form of limiting private airspace could be an outcome-based approach. The test
of “ordinary use and enjoyment”, despite being subjective, could be used as an appropriate test for
an outcome centric approach. Under torts law, a three-step test is usually employed to determine
whether trespass was committed. The accused should not have entered private property without pri-
or permission, remained on such land for a period of time and failed to remove from the land a thing
which he had a duty to remove. Determination of trespass rarely takes into account the harm caused
by the incursion. This eliminates a harm-centric approach as was discussed for privacy. Courts how-
ever, will consider the intention of the accused into account while assessing whether they have tres-
passed. UAVs flying over private property for which they do not have permission could be prohibited
from hovering over such property. Hovering over property could establish an intention to trespass by
the operator and a warning could be issued to the UAV operators via best practice manuals or during
pilot training. The UAV should also be required to fly at a distance respecting the rights of property
owners to the highest extent of their capabilities. If a UAV flies close to a private building, despite
having the technological capability to maintain a safe flying distance, the operator could be held liable
for trespass. The determination of trespass has a wealth of case law in most countries across the
world. The application of tests to UAVs should be done while keeping technological limitations in
mind, especially if operations beyond VLOS are permitted in the future. It also becomes the admin-
istration’s responsibility to issue a manual or training to pilots based on the tests for determining

60
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

trespass by drones as is ascertained by the judiciary. It might be incorrect to determine trespass based
on other tests if the pilot was unaware of trespass rules for drones, as the intention aspect of the test
would not be fulfilled beyond doubt in such cases.

DRONES AND GLOBAL RULES OF THE ROAD

There is clearly a surge in the use of drones globally. However, rules and regulations concerning their
use have not seen much traction yet. There is an urgent need to formulate these rules because there
are thousands of drones being flown around in many countries with no effective policies regulating
their use. Drones are becoming more advanced and sophisticated; however, there is a need to catch
up on the new uses, technologies and policies that are required. Establishing clearly laid out rules lead
to positive impact on national security, individual safety and on security issues in general. The Presi-
dent and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation highlighted the growing risks to aviation safety from
drone use. He specifically concerned about the uncertificated, untrained recreational drone operators
which are flying small UAS near airports and manned aircraft (Flight Safety Foundation, 2018). He
also highlighted the increasing number of small drone operations by individuals “without civil avia-
tion experience” and the risks posed by such operations to manned aviation. A number of incidents
such as the crash of a Robinson R22 in Charleston, South Carolina, US in February 2018, the case
of a drone coming within 5 feet of a commercial aircraft during landing at London Heathrow Air-
port in October 2017, the collision between a drone and small commercial aircraft during a landing
to Jean Lesage International Airport in Quebec in 2017, the collision of a recreational drone and a
US Army Black Hawk helicopter in New York in September 2017 were all cited as imperatives to
urgently introduce regulatory measures on the use of drones.
At the global level, the implementation of policy regulations is in a progress. The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the leading body in aviation for forming regulations globally.
ICAO’s efforts to introduce regulations to drone usage can be traced back to when it issued the first
set of rules called Circular 328 in 2011, which can be categorized as the premier step towards global
drone regulation. Circular 328 required governments to provide feedback related to drone utilities,
with the objective of developing a foundational international policy regulatory framework through
“Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), with supporting Procedures for Air Navigation
Services (PANS) and guidance material to underpin routine operation of UAS throughout the world
in a safe, harmonized and seamless manner comparable to that of manned operations.” (Library of
Congress, 2016). In a positive attempt, ICAO went on to issue the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
(RPAS) Manual. In April 2018, ICAO issued a call for “innovative solutions for drone airspace man-
agement,” which is one of the critical issues from a safety and security perspective (International
Civil Aviation Organisation, 2018). During the ICAO symposium held in Montreal in September
2018, ICAO is considering the creation of an international drone registry as part of its overall efforts
to streamline rules and regulations on drone usage. While ICAO cannot intervene in state regulations
and policies, ICAO’ Air Navigation Bureau is of the view that having a global registry “would eschew
multiple databases in favor of a one-stop-shop that would allow law enforcement to remotely identi-
fy and track unmanned aircraft, along with their operator and owner.” (Lampert, 2017). In addition,
ICAO is the natural agency to bring together the best and brightest from government and industry to
define how these aircraft can be safely integrated into modern airspace, and in a way that optimizes
their benefits globally for the wide range of public and private sector operators (International Civil
Aviation Organisation, 2018). There are a few additional documents from ICAO that could serve as
interim measures until the more comprehensive guidelines are established. ICAO has added three

61
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

UAS-related amendments to its Annexes. The first is Amendment 13 to Annex 13: Defining acci-
dents to include reference to unmanned aircraft (March 2010), Amendment 6 to Annex 7: Registra-
tion and identification requirements for remotely piloted aircraft (April 2012) and Amendment 43 to
Annex 2: High level requirements relating to remotely piloted aircraft systems (April 2012). There are
also the collection of norms and regulations being formulated by other agencies and countries. In the
European context, in 2002, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and European Organization for the
Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) established a UAV Task Force with an objective of
integrating UAVs into European airspace with the help of a certain guiding document regulating the
sector (Stocker, 2017). The JAA was later succeeded by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) tasked by the European Commission to frame the drone regulations. EASA had earlier re-
leased a drone use framework document titled the “Opinion 01/2018: Unmanned Aircraft System
(UAS) Operations in the ‘Open’ and ‘Specific’ Categories.” The document does not appear to favor
drone hobbyists because of its insistence on Visual Line of Sight Requirements (European Aviation
Safety Agency, 2018). Even though the document was a policy proposal developed in consultation
with UAV operators, academia and industry partners, certain operators which include hobbyists are
not satisfied with the outcome. Media reports capture a gloomy picture that “if the opinion3 is
adopted, virtually all medium-sized hobby and prosumer drones will be caught by the new EU rules,
effectively turning their pilots into criminals unless they register their craft with regulators and pass
mandatory tests.” (Corfield, 2018). However, different European countries have established different
regulations, with some applying more stringent ones than others. For example, France has a more
restrained approach compared to Sweden or Norway. As a most reliable regulatory body, ICAO is
able to examine the policies established by other countries such as the US, Australia, Japan and Chi-
na. There have also been some suggestions that what the UAV sector needs is more of a soft law that
can adjust itself “due to the on-going emergence of new UAV technology, slowly adapting existing
UAV regulations are of limited suitability in keeping the link to current developments.” (Moses, 2013)
The authors would like to add that “the main problems concern the constant need to address new
potential harms, risks and negative impacts.” (Marchant, 2011) The importance of soft laws as com-
plementary to formal regulations is indeed a useful step. It might also be helpful to study the industry
self-regulations and internal policies and practices. They are likely to be quite stringent because of
two reasons. Firstly, many of these industries have a global presence, at least in terms of their cus-
tomer-base. Second, “key players will play an important role in establishing internationally recognized
standards in order to increase entry barriers against new market competitors. Industrial design stand-
ards for UAV components or standardized communication devices that prevent mid-air collisions are
conceivable examples.” (Stocker, 2017) It is also useful to study and adapt how some of the states
have dealt with the use of drones. Some States have outright bans on drones for civil and commercial
purposes while others have put in place more stringent measures that effectively translate to a ban.
Others have policies with certain restrictions that are meant to ensure safety and security during
drone operations (Jones, 2017). Table below is taken from a RAND Corporation report and only
relates to drone use for commercial purposes giving a fair understanding of the broad policy ap-
proaches taken by states. In the “Outright Ban” row are countries that have enforced a complete ban
on the use of drones for commercial purposes. These countries include: Argentina, Barbados, Cuba,
India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, and Uzbekistan. In the row titled “Effective Ban” are the
countries that allow commercial drone use (governmental approval has been given) but in effect, no

3 Opinion 01/2018 of the European Aviation Safety Agency

62
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

operator has been given an approval (such as in Algeria and Egypt, where the government gives ap-
proval for commercial uses of drones but no operator has been granted licenses so far) or in certain
cases, the licensing and legal process are too cumbersome and/ or time consuming that it has result-
ed in an effective ban on drones for commercial purposes. In the third row “Visual Line of Sight
(VLOS) required” are those countries that do permit commercial use of drones with the requirement
to maintain a visual line of sight of the pilot. In the row “Experimental beyond Visual Line of Sight
(BVLOS)” is the category of countries that allow flying of drones Beyond Visual Line of Sight with
certain conditions and rating requirements from pilots. Many European countries for example allow
for BVLOS operations to take place in areas that are not heavily populated while ruling out cities and
areas with large gatherings of people. These countries are exploring the possibility of expanding the
BVLOS operations after a trial period. China on the other hand, is generally open to BVLOS opera-
tions which are also banned in major cities “because of the need of delivery drone operators to im-
prove collision avoidance systems.” On the last row, the “Permissive” category is composed of coun-
tries that have introduced legislative measures that permit the commercial use of drones. These
countries acknowledge the inevitability of certain uses of UAVs based on technological advance-
ments and therefore have framed the regulatory and licensing procedures in such a way that will
permit a trial of BVLOS technology (Table 1).

63
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

Table 1.
Drone Regulations by Country for Commercial Delivery Purposes
Approach Definition Countries
Outright Ban Countries under this category do not Argentina Morocco
allow the commercial use of drones. Barbados Saudi Arabia
Cuba Slovenia
India Uzbekistan

Effective Ban Countries under this category have a Algeria Egypt

formal process for commercial drone Belarus Kenya
licensing, however requirements to Chile Nicaragua
Colombia Nigeria
obtain permission are either impossible
to meet or commercial players do not
appear to have been given licenses.
Visual Line of Countries under this category allow for Belgium Mexico
Sight (VLOS) drone operation within the VLOS of Bermuda Nepal
Required the pilot, thus limiting their potential Bhutan Netherlands
Botswana Slovakia
range.
Croatia Luxembourg
Ecuador South Africa
Jamaica South Korea
Latvia Switzerland
Lithuania Thailand
Experimental In these countries, exceptions to the Australia Japan
Beyond Visual constant VLOS requirement are possi- Austria New Zealand
Line of Sight ble with certain restrictions and pilot Brazil Panama
Canada Poland
(BVLOS) ratings.
China Rwanda
Czech Republic Singapore
Denmark South Africa
Finland Sri Lanka
France Russia
Germany Trinidad and To-
Greece bago
Guyana Uganda
Ireland United Kingdom
United States
Permissive Countries have enacted relatively unre- Costa Rica Norway
stricted legislation on commercial Iceland Sweden
drone use. These countries have a body Italy United Arab
Emirates
of regulation that may give operational
guidelines or require licensing, registra-
tion, and insurance, and upon follow-
ing proper procedures it is straightfor-
ward to operate a commercial delivery
drone.
Source: Jones, T. (2017). International Commercial Drone Regulation and Drone Delivery Services. RAND
Corporation,
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1700/RR1718z3/RAND_RR1718z3.pd
f

64
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

In conclusion, India, along with other countries that have allowed drones to fly in their airspace, need
to have well-laid out regulations that are practically implementable. Currently, most countries have
framed their drone policy only with reference to ensuring aviation safety (danger for manned air-
crafts) and therefore, these rules have not encompassed many other areas such as drone-to-drone
collision and other kinds of drone accidents. As drone technology changes and becomes more af-
fordable and accessible, it will be impossible for some countries to continue banning the usage of
drones. It would be better to consider the regulatory aspects of drone usage taking as example the
path traversed by countries that have adopted more permissive drone policy. Countries that have
adopted the Visual Line of Sight approach are more progressive in their approach to regulating tech-
nology than countries that have adopted outright or effective bans which should also consider more
permissive usage of drones. For countries that have a more permissive approach to the use of drones
should consider sharing their experiences and best practices as well as the difficulties and problem
areas with the other countries that are still struggling to frame their policies. Government policies
need to address a range of issues relating to privacy, surveillance and cases of trespass. These may be
specific to the domestic jurisdiction of states and multilateral bodies that may not be able to suggest
possible remedial measures. However, best policy practices from other countries and regional agen-
cies could form a useful blueprint while developing policies on the use of drones, especially policies
relating to hobbyists and commercial operators. The practices laid out by this paper could be a start-
ing point for countries to come together and create a set of best practices and confidence building
measures at forums like ICAO. Through these policy measures, the paper also ties into two ICAO’s
focus areas which are Improving SARP and Policy Development. ICAO’s Safety Measure Standards
and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are cable to address issues such as drone to drone and bird
collisions through technological standard enforcement in the future. It is also recommended for In-
dia to join the current movement towards developing the global rules of the road about drone use.
This will have impact not only in terms of framing regulations that could consider India’s concerns
and voices but also equally important is for New Delhi to push its role as a credible stakeholder in
developing norms for the use of drones. The formation of these norms is essential to harness the
economic and commercial potential of the technology to its fullest. The technology is such that it
has proliferated to some extent to most countries across the globe. For certain applications, drones
are fairly low-cost and present operators with a host of previously unexplored opportunities. Due to
these factors, they have become popular for tasks such as photography, land mapping, resource plan-
ning, and recreation in both developed and developing countries. Like India, several countries have
faced challenges with regulating UAVs due to the unique set of issues they present for civil aviation
regulators. Some of these countries have taken the same route India initially took with a blanket ban
on the usage of UAVs, while others have allowed their use in a manner that may present safety chal-
lenges to civil aviation as well as national security challenges in the future. For a technology that is
evolving at a rapid rate, cooperation for regulation will be required and countries learning from each
other’s experiences with regulating UAVs are likely to give the most effective way to govern the do-
main. These aspects tie into ICAO’s initiative of No Country Left Behind which this paper endorses
and attempts to help with. A mechanism of feedback and correction is required to regulate any new
technology that has uses and impacts that are not fully understood by policy makers. For countries
that still have a low adoption rate of drones, it is beneficial to get ahead of the curve by regulating
using the feedback other countries received on their models of governance to create innovative ap-

65
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

proaches to form policy on the topic. This can only be achieved when regulatory bodies such as
ICAO continue providing all countries with the common resource on forming their own policy in an
ever-changing environment.

REFERENCES
Bhandari, V., Kak, A., Parsheera, S., & Rahman, F. (2017). An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court's
Privacy Verdict. IndraStra Global, (11), 5. Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, 547 A.2d 387, 391 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1988)
Corfield, G. (2018, February 26). EU aviation agency publishes new drone framework. Hobbyists won't like it.
The Register. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/26/easa_drone_regs_opinion/
Dhande, M. (2016, November 19). The current scenario of global drone regulations and laws. Geospatial World.
Retrieved from https://www.geospatialworld.net/article/present-global-drone-regulations-laws/
Digital Sky Platform launched – India to start registration of drones, pilots, and operators Registration portal
for online permission (2018, December 1). Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Retrieved from
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=186069
Drones. Information Commissioner’s Office, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://ico.org.uk/your-data-
matters/drones/ [Accessed October 15, 2018].
Eye in the Sky: Indian Police Gets First Fleet of Drones (2016, May 10). Sputnik News. Retrieved from
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201605101039388548-india-drones-police/#ixzz495kR3mez
Faraz, A. Data on wings – A close look at drones in India. PWC India. Retrieved from
https://www.pwc.in/consulting/financial-services/fintech/fintech-insights/data-on-wings-a-close-look-at-
drones-in-india.html [Accessed October 15, 2018].
Farber, H. B. (2016). Keep out: The Efficacy of Trespass, Nuisance and Privacy Torts as Applied to
Drones. Ga. St. UL Rev., 33, 359.
For Amazon’s long-term plans and other market trends, see Castellano, F. Commercial Drones Are Revolution-
izing Business Operations. Retrieved from https://www.toptal.com/finance/market-research-
analysts/drone-market [Accessed October 15, 2018].
Foundation Urges ICAO, Governments to Accelerate Regulation, Oversight of Recreational Drones. (2018,
February 21). Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved from: https://flightsafety.org/fsf-urges-recreational-
drone-regulation/
General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union. (2016). https://eugdpr.org/
India fastest growing market for unmanned aerial vehicles. (2018, March 26). PTI, Economic Times. Retrieved
from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-fastest-growing-market-for-unmanned-
aerial-vehicles/articleshow/63466658.cms
India gets its first drone policy: All you need to know about drone regulations 1.0. (2018, August 28). FirstPost.
Retrieved from: https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/india-gets-its-first-drone-policy-all-you-
need-to-know-about-drone-regulations-1-0-5060601.html
Jones, T. (2017). International commercial drone regulation and drone delivery services (No. RR-1718/3-RC). RAND.
Lampert, A. (2017, September 9). U.N. aviation agency to call for global drone registry. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-drones/u-n-aviation-agency-to-call-for-global-drone-registry-
idUSKCN1BJ2CL
Marchant, G. E., Allenby, B. R., & Herkert, J. R. (Eds.). (2011). The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-
ethical oversight: The pacing problem (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media. C., Bennett, R., Nex, F.,
Gerke, M. & Zevennergen, J. (2017). Review of the Current State of UAV Regulations Remote Sens,9, 459.
Retrieved from:http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/5/459/pdf
McNeal, G. S. (2014). Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislators. Brookings Institution: The
Robots Are Coming: The Project on Civilian Robotics.

66
 Rajagopalan and Krishna

Moses, L. B. (2013). How to think about law, regulation and technology: Problems with “technology”as a regu-
latory target. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(1), 1-20.
Murphy, M. (2015, November 30). Amazon wants to use its new drones to deliver your packages—as long as
you have a big lawn. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/561581/amazon-wants-to-use-its-new-
drones-to-deliveryour-packages-as-long-as-you-have-a-big-lawn/
Opinion 01/2015 on Privacy and Data Protection Issues relating to the Utilisation of Drones. (2015). Article
29 Data Protection Working Party, European Union. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-
29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2015/wp231_en.pdf
Opinion 01/2018: Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories. (2018).
European Aviation Safety Agency. Retrieved from: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-
library/opinions/opinion-012018
ICAO issues call for innovative solutions for drone airspace management. (2018, April 9). International Civil Avi-
ation Organisation. Retrieved from: https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-issues-call-for-
innovative-solutions-for-drone-airspace-management.aspx
Patel, S. (2016, September 22). This Ganeshotsav, drones to monitor immersion. The Hindu. Retrieved from:
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-mumbai/This-Ganeshotsav-drones-to-monitor-
immersion/article14616665.ece
Rajagopalan, R. P., & Krishna, R. (2018). Drones: Guidelines, regulations, and policy gaps in India. Observer Research
Foundation.
Regulation of Drones. (2016). Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-
drones/regulation-ofdrones.pdf
Requirements for Operation of Civil Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). (2018, August 27). Office of the
Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India. Retrieved from http://dgca.nic.in/cars/D3X-X1.pdf
Sharma, A. (2018, April 25). Agra Police to use drone killers to tackle illegal unmanned aerial vehicles flying
over Taj Mahal. India Today. Retrieved from: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/agra-police-to-use-
drone-killers-to-tackle-illegal-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-flying-over-taj-mahal-1220305-2018-04-25
Stöcker, C., Bennett, R., Nex, F., Gerke, M., & Zevenbergen, J. (2017). Review of the current state of UAV
regulations. Remote sensing, 9(5), 459.
The Information Technology (Amendment) Act. (2008). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Re-
trieved from: http://nagapol.gov.in/PDF/IT%20Act%20(Amendments)2008.pdf
The Personal Data Protection Bill. (2018). Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.
Retrieved from http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Personal_Data_Protection_Bill,2018.pdf
The Right to Privacy Bill. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (2011). Retrieved from: https://cis-
india.org/internet-governance/draft-bill-on-right-to-privacy
UP Police to buy “Killer Drones” for state assembly. (2018, March 28). Times of India. Retrieved from
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/up-police-to-buy-killer-drones-for-state-
assembly/articleshow/63505507.cms
(Using drones for social sector research. (2017, June 19). Ideas for India, Retrieved from
http://www.ideasforindia.in/article.aspx?article=Using-drones-for-socialsector-research.

67
India’s Drone Policy: Domestic and Global Imperative

BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is a Distinguished Fellow & Head of the Nuclear and Space Policy Ini-
tiative, at Observer Research Foundation. She is also a Technical Advisor to a newly constituted UN Group
of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). As the senior Asia
defense writer for The Diplomat, she writes a weekly column on Asian security and strategic issues. Dr. Ra-
jagopalan joined ORF after a five-year stint at the National Security Council Secretariat (2003-2007), where
she was an Assistant Director. Prior to joining the NSCS, she was Research Officer at the Institute of De-
fence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. She was also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute of Inter-
national Politics, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan in 2012. She has been invited to speak
at international fora including the UN COPUOS (Vienna), Conference on Disarmament (Geneva), UNIDIR
(Geneva), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the European Union. She is the author of four books
and has co-authored/ edited five books including Global Nuclear Security: Moving Beyond the
NSS (2018) and Space Policy 2.0: Commerce, Policy, Security and Governance Perspectives (2017).
Her research articles have appeared in edited volumes, and in peer reviewed journals such as India Review,
Strategic Studies Quarterly, Air and Space Power Journal, International Journal of Nuclear Law, and Strategic Analysis.
Rahul Krishna is a student of Electronics and Communication Engineering at Delhi Technological Univer-
sity. He is a former research intern at Observer Research Foundation. He does research primarily on topics
related to technology and space policy. He has published at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Atlan-
tic Council among others.

68