Opinion India’s proposed Drone Law risks clipping the industry’s wings

One would expect that moving from delegated rules to standalone legislation would provide long-term certainty to the sector. Instead, it introduces harsher penalties, eliminates R&D pathways, and leaves much of the detail to delegated legislation. Rather than accelerating growth, this approach threatens to slow the industry down. If India wants to become a global hub for drone technologies — a goal that has been espoused by PM Modi — it must rethink its approach.

India’s drone ecosystem is young but full of potential. Start-ups have already demonstrated how unmanned aerial vehicles can help farmers optimise crop cycles, deliver vaccines to remote areas, and support infrastructure projects. The government itself has leaned on drones for mapping under the SVAMITVA scheme and for disaster management. Globally, countries are racing to unlock beyond-visual-line-of-sight-operations (BVLOS), the holy grail for commercial drone use. India cannot afford to lag. A predictable, innovation-friendly regulatory framework is not just a policy aspiration; it’s an economic and strategic necessity.

The draft bill, however, raises three major concerns. The first is the emphasis on criminalisation. Jail terms are proposed for a wide range of violations. While deterrence is important, criminal penalties for routine compliance miss the principle of proportionality. Threatening entrepreneurs with prison time for minor errors risks freezing innovation in a sector still finding its footing. On top of this, the bill grants the police sweeping powers to search, seize and confiscate drones. For an industry where equipment is expensive and downtime can be crippling, the possibility of on-the-spot confiscation adds an additional layer of operational risk. Start-ups and service providers cannot plan with confidence if their drones could be grounded by discretionary action, even for minor infractions. Such powers may be justified in cases involving malicious use or clear threats to security, but applying them broadly risks creating an unpredictable enforcement environment.

Second, the bill leaves much of the operational detail — permissions, licensing, and standards — to delegated legislation. That means the sector remains in limbo, with key rules to be filled in later. A law that merely reproduces uncertainty is a missed opportunity.

Third, the draft is heavily focused on restrictions rather than innovation. It offers little by way of enabling frameworks. There is no serious attempt to create regulatory sandboxes or carve-outs for experimental BVLOS projects, which are critical for advancing drone technology. Despite years of pilot initiatives and consultations, India has yet to meaningfully unlock BVLOS operations — the single most important next step for the full potential of the technology to be unlocked. It is disappointing that the new legislation, meant to provide a long-term foundation, does little to move the needle on this front.

The combined effect is that the bill risks creating a patchwork that leaves operators guessing. Investors will hesitate to back start-ups where the risk of inadvertent non-compliance carries criminal consequences. Entrepreneurs will be reluctant to experiment if the default approach of the regulator is to prohibit first and clarify later. This is a step back from the 2021 Drone Rules, which signalled India’s seriousness about reducing red tape and inviting innovation. The draft bill, in contrast, reinforces the old caricature of India as a jurisdiction where compliance burdens outweigh opportunities.

There is still time to get this right. A shift from rules to a law should not multiply uncertainty. The law should hardcode the commitment to innovation in its regulatory framework, and even if operational details are left to delegated legislation — they should be brought out simultaneously to enable meaningful inputs from stakeholders. The enforcement regime should be proportionate. Jail time should be reserved for the most egregious offences: Malicious use of drones, threats to national security, or reckless operations causing physical harm. For minor infractions, civil penalties and monetary fines are more appropriate. This would reassure operators that good-faith errors will not lead to disproportionate punishment.

The law should also be forward-looking. Sandboxes are not just industry-friendly; they are regulator-friendly too. They generate real-world data on safety, reliability and risk management, allowing policymakers to move from guesswork to evidence-based regulation. By observing how drones perform in supervised conditions, regulators can design proportionate rules instead of defaulting to blanket prohibitions. Countries like Singapore and the UK have already demonstrated how sandbox frameworks can allow regulators to manage risks while still giving industry room to innovate. India should not miss this chance to position itself as a testbed for cutting-edge UAV applications.

India has the talent, the capital, and the demand to become a global drone powerhouse. But regulatory uncertainty and heavy-handed enforcement threaten to ground this ambition. The Draft Civil Drone (Promotion & Regulation) Bill, 2025, in its current form, is more about control than enablement. Reimagined with clarity, proportionality, and innovation at its heart, the law could be the foundation for a world-leading drone ecosystem. The question is whether policymakers will use this moment to clip its wings or to help the industry take flight.

Taneja and Rastogi are partner and managing partner respectively at the law and policy firm Ikigai Law