On 16 September 2025, the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) released the draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 (hereafter the “Bill”) which is the most extensive legislative revision in the governance of the unmanned aircraft systems in India to date. The Bill proposes a dedicated statutory framework for civilian drones, replacing the Drone Rules, 2021 and introducing a more comprehensive regime for compliance and enforcement.
The civilian drone industry in India has experienced exponential growth in the last decade fuelled by technological advancements, a reduction in hardware costs, and the growing commercial applications across agriculture, logistics, surveillance, and emergency response. This development has led to a strong legal framework which is capable of tackling the airspace management, public safety, national security and industrial promotion at the same time.
The unmanned aircraft systems were previously regulated under the Drone Rules, 2021, under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and are now incorporated in the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024. The 2021 Rules marked a positive step above the previous legislative landscape, but they were identified as having a number of key limitations: a disjointed legislative framework, inadequate penal deterrence and an exemption-laden structure poorly adapted to the sector’s changing risk profile.
The draft Bill aims to do just that, offering a dedicated statutory framework for all civilian unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) with a maximum all up weight of less than or equal to 500Kg. It is said to have twin goals of fostering innovation and industrial development, and ensure safety, security and accountability.
This blog discusses the key provisions of the Bill and considers its implications for drone operators, manufacturers and commercial businesses, and also indicates what aspects of the Bill are ambiguous and need to be further clarified in legislation.
Legislative Architecture: From Delegated Rules to a Standard Statute
The most significant part of the Drone Bill has been the fact that it is a primary legislation. The Rules of 2021 were delegated legislation, executive instruments framed within the statutory authority, and thus they lacked the same strengths as rules or regulations, with the potential for amendment or repeal, limited constitutional capacity to impose criminal sanctions and the vulnerability to challenge the rules on the basis of excessive delegation.
The Bill, if enacted by Parliament, will be a primary legislation and the rule making would take effect and authority to make rules in the future would be based on the provisions of the Bill, supplanting the 2021 Rules entirely. The decision to bring UAS into a dedicated statute was made deliberately as a sector that is now mature enough to be recognized as such.
The Bill covers the Indian citizens as well as foreign nationals and any person or entity that is involved in the drone ecosystem in Indian territory. It has an extraterritorial application, which is relevant for Indian manufacturers having international commercial relationships, for their drones registered in India but used abroad. Military and police UAS’s are still specifically prohibited, under other executive instruments.
Key Compliance Obligations For Operators
1. Universal Registration and Unique Identification
The Bill requires universal registration, which means that no drone can be owned, sold, transferred or used in India without having its Unique Identification Number (UIN) issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The 2021 Rules had categorical registration exemptions for nano drones and R&D prototypes which are removed or tightened in the current Bill. This fills a significant compliance gap, but it also creates hindrances for hobbyists, universities, and for early stage innovators from an administrative and an economic point of view. However, with regards to the question of whether subordinate legislation will offer a suitably nuanced exemptions to the demonstrably low risk use cases, that remains to be determined at the time of writing, which is yet to be decided.
2. Mandatory Third-Party Insurance
All operators shall ensure that, the third-party insurance policy is valid for their lawful flight operations as per the requirements, unless exempted by the DGCA. This need is based on the understanding that the use of drones poses risk of damage to property and injury to persons, and that third-party protection is not possible to be ensured by the market alone. The Bill also establishes a separate victim compensation mechanism (which was not provided for by, the Rules in 2021), but leaves the details, such as who is eligible and how much, to subordinate rules.
3. Airspace Classification and the Digital Sky Platform
The Digital Sky platform and its three-zone airspace classification are preserved under the Bill:
- Green Zones: Drone operations are freely permitted without prior clearance.
- Yellow Zones: Advance clearance is required from air traffic control.
- Red Zones: Operations categorically prohibited near airports, defence installations, sensitive government facilities.
Operators must verify applicable zone classifications prior to each flight and obtain requisite clearances where mandated. Violations attract the penalties which are described in Part V of the Bill.
Implications For Manufacturers And Commercial Enterprises
1. Type Certification as a Prerequisite to Market Entry
The most significant change for manufacturers is the mandatory type certification. The 2021 Rules were narrowly drafted and had specific exemptions for R&D prototypes and nano drones. The Bill does away with these exemptions and mandates DGCA clearance for almost all the drone categories which are relevant to commerce, so that no drone product can be manufactured, sold or deployed without clearance from DGCA.
All manufacturers, including local startups, are required to go through a formal certification procedure, which will drive up costs for compliance and prolong the time to market. The revision of the R&D exemptions comes as a concern for industry associations such as NASSCOM, which have warned that it could stifle prototyping and have an inequitable impact on small and new businesses. They are worthy of serious consideration in the sub reg. making process under Section 45 of the Bill.
2. Extended Liability to Associated Entities
The Bill broadens the scope of liability to include not just those directly involved in the operation and manufacture of a drone but also “financers” and associated “entities” involved in an offence which is an unusual wording and an extension from the 2021 Rules. Financial institutions and venture capital funds will henceforth need to do thorough compliance due diligence before investing in drone businesses. The precise shape and form of “associated entity” liability, including the mens rea requirement and good faith defences, is likely to be fleshed out in subordinate legislation and by judicial interpretation.
3. Extraterritorial Applicability
The Bill’s extra-territoriality would operate where compliance and liability under the law would apply to India registered drones operating overseas which has a significant consequences for export-oriented manufacturers. Even if the operation takes place completely outside Indian territory, if the UAS is registered in India, its registration number may be applicable for the purposes of this Regulation. International distribution channels should be taken into consideration by manufacturers.
Enforcement Architecture: A Paradigm Shift to Criminal Liability
The enforcement regime in the Bill is a complete departure from the civil and administrative system in the Rules of 2021. There are a number of classes of contraventions which are provided for as cognisable and non-compoundable criminal offences with serious consequences for personal liberty and corporate accountability. The cognisable classification is one which allows for warrantless arrest, while the non-compoundable classification bars settlement by paying a fine.
Imprisonment of up to 36 months and fines are imposed for the most serious offences including the use of a UAS as a weapon and carrying dangerous goods. The Bill provides for a graded system of penalties, with lesser contraventions having a fine of ₹50,000 or imprisonment of three months (or both) and repeated offences a fine of ₹1,00,000 or imprisonment of six months (or both). DGCA and the authorised officers also have the power of seizure and confiscation during investigations.
The increased deterrence is a justifiable aim of regulation but the imposition of cognisable offences on wrongful conduct as a result of unintentional breach could chill legitimate commercial activity. How discretion is applied when enforcing the Bill will be crucial for its uptake in industry.
Regulatory Uncertainty: The Delegated Legislation Problem
The Bill sets out the structure of drone operations in general, but also leaves a significant amount of detail for subordinate legislation under Section 45, which covers, drone classification; type certification standards; safety and technical specifications; pilot training and certification; record-keeping obligations; and operational parameters, such as altitude restrictions, payload restrictions, and performance standards.
It is not peculiar to the technologically complex areas of regulation, but this dependence on delegated legislation generates a considerable compliance uncertainty. Without the publication of the pertinent rules, it will be difficult for operators and businesses to truly understand their regulatory risks, which will make it more difficult to make investment decisions, develop products, and plan operations. Legal academics and stakeholders have called for the expeditious, transparent and meaningful stakeholder consultation in subordinate rule making by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, for which the Rules of 2021 had been amended twice within three years of their enactment, as a cautionary tale for inadequate legislation drafting.
Conclusion
The draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 is a major and much-needed development in India’s UAS governance framework. By being elevated to primary legislation, universal registration deadline, mandatory type certification, compulsory insurance, and increased enforcement provisions, it creates a much sturdier framework than the 2021 Rules offer.
There are legitimate concerns, though, about the reduction of R&D exemptions, extending liability to financiers and the number of cognisable offence classifications. It will rely heavily on the quality of subordinate rule making and implementation of DGCA to achieve the two-fold purpose of the Bill, which is promotion and regulation.
The message for all operators and businesses involved in the drone sector in India is clear: proactive planning to meet compliance standards, building up capacity in legal advice and involvement in the rule-making process. Compliance programs that are well established and planned before legislation comes into effect will reap the greatest rewards from India’s vision becoming a drone hub by 2030.
Author: Shyamli Shukla, Senior Associate
Co- Author: Abhishek Singh , Intern
