Table of Contents

Drone Penalty: Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam

Section 26 of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 carries the frightening number. It punishes a person who wilfully flies an aircraft in a manner that causes danger to any person or to any property, and the maximum is two years imprisonment, or a fine up to one crore rupees, or both. Three ingredients have to be present together before that section touches you. Flying that merely breaks an operating rule sits somewhere far smaller, and this page keeps the two apart.

Drone flying penalty under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024

What section 26 actually says

The Act came into force on 1 January 2025. The commencement footnote printed in the India Code text reads: “1ST January, 2025, vide notification NO. S.O. 5646(E), dated 31st December, 2024, see Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II”. Section 26 reads:

“Penalty for flying so as to cause danger. Whoever wilfully flies any aircraft in such a manner as to cause danger to any person or to any property on land or water or in the air shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one crore rupees, or with both.”

Pull that apart and it needs three things at once.

Worth knowing before you read any further: the Act never uses the word “drone”. It does not use “unmanned” either. Neither word appears anywhere in the India Code text of the Act as on 21 July 2025. Everything specific to drones lives in rules, not in the Act.

Two flights, one statute

Both people below are invented to illustrate the line. The facts are not from any reported case.

Meera flies an 800 gram camera drone over a wedding lawn for about twenty minutes, in a green zone, staying below the height limit, with the drone registered on the digital sky platform. She has broken nothing if her paperwork is in order. Even if she had forgotten to register it, that is a Drone Rules problem with a Drone Rules consequence. It is not section 26, because nothing she did endangered anyone.

Rakesh flies the same drone at dusk, low and fast over a crowded market street, to get a shot he wants, and twice drops it to head height over people. Whether or not he holds every permission, this is exactly the conduct section 26 describes: wilful flying, in a manner causing danger to persons and property. The paperwork does not save him and the absence of paperwork is not what condemns him.

That is the whole distinction. Section 26 is about danger, not about compliance.

How a 1934 rulebook survives inside a 2024 Act

The detailed drone rules you are actually expected to follow were made under a statute that no longer exists. The chain runs like this, and each link is quoted rather than assumed.

  1. The Drone Rules, 2021 were notified as G.S.R. 589 of 2021 on 25 August 2021. The gazette says the Central Government made them “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5, sub-section (2) of section 10 and sections 10A, 10B and 12A of the Aircraft Act, 1934”. Rule 3(1)(a) of those rules defines “Act” as the Aircraft Act, 1934.
  2. Section 43(1) of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 says: “The Aircraft Act, 1934 is hereby repealed.”
  3. Section 43(2) saves what was done under it. Anything done or any action taken, “including any rule, regulation, notification, inspection or order made or issued; or any licence, certificate, approval, permission or exemption granted”, under the repealed Act “shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act”. Section 43(3) adds that this does not cut down section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
  4. Section 2(3) of the new Act defines “aircraft” in the broad terms quoted above.

The reading that follows, and it is a reading rather than a quotation, is this: a drone is a machine that derives support in the atmosphere from reactions of the air, so it sits inside the section 2(3) words, and the Drone Rules, 2021 continue to operate because section 43(2) deems them made under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. The Act itself never says so, and no court ruling to that effect is cited on this page because none was found.

One quotation does support the idea that the Act and the rules can both bite at once. Rule 49(4) of the Drone Rules, 2021 says the provisions of those rules “shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force”.

What you can actually be made to pay

The single most common mistake about this Act is attaching one crore rupees to an ordinary rule breach. Read the fourth column before you panic.

What happened Maximum exposure Provision Is that number fixed by the Act?
Wilfully flying an aircraft so as to cause danger to a person or to property Up to 2 years, or fine up to one crore rupees, or both Section 26 Yes. The Act itself fixes it
Breaching a rule on carrying arms, explosives or other dangerous goods in an aircraft, or giving false information about them Up to 2 years, or fine up to one crore rupees, or both Section 25 sub-section 1 Yes
Abetting, or attempting, any offence under the Act or the rules The punishment provided for the offence itself Section 29 Follows the main offence
Breaching any other rule made under sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 17 Only what that rule itself provides Section 25 sub-section 4 No. The Act sets a ceiling of 2 years or one crore rupees, and the Government “may direct” a penalty within it
A money penalty adjudged by a designated officer for contravening a rule Only what that rule prescribes Section 32 sub-section 1 No. A ceiling of one crore rupees, “as may be prescribed”
Contravening the Drone Rules, 2021 Penalty not exceeding one lakh rupees Rule 50, Drone Rules, 2021 Yes. This is what is actually prescribed for drones

Section 36 lets a convicting court forfeit the aircraft to the Central Government, but only on a conviction under section 25(1) or under a rule made under clause ® of section 10(2). Section 26 is not in that list.

Only the DGCA can start the prosecution

This is the part that answers the neighbour who threatens you over a housing society drone. Section 31(1) says no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act “save on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in writing by the Director General of Civil Aviation or Director General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security or Director General of Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau”. Section 31(2) gives that officer one year from the date the offence came to his knowledge. Section 31(3) says no court below a Judicial Magistrate of the first class may try it.

An angry complaint therefore has to travel through a regulator before it can become a prosecution. Note the mirror image in the rules: rule 49(2) of the Drone Rules, 2021 makes contravention of rule 22, which requires prior permission for a red or yellow zone, and rule 27, on carriage of arms and explosives, cognizable and non-compoundable. Those two are the sharp end of the rulebook.

On compounding, section 30(1) allows an offence under the Act or the rules to be compounded by one of the three Directors General “not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, or punishable with imprisonment and also with fine”, for an amount not exceeding one crore rupees as may be prescribed. Section 30(2) shuts that door for a repeat within five years. The Act does not publish a list of which offences qualify, so this page does not tell you that any particular offence is compoundable.

Where the rules that bind your day actually live

The Act gives you the ceiling. The Drone Rules, 2021 give you the flying. The parts a photographer or a farmer actually meets are these, quoted from the 2021 gazette.

Two amendments to those rules are published by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The one dated 11 February 2022 mainly renamed the remote pilot licence a remote pilot certificate. The one dated 27 September 2023 changed a single identity-proof entry in Form D-4.

What this page does not settle

Three loose ends, stated rather than papered over.

Rule 50 points at a repealed section. It lets the Director General, or an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government or a Union Territory Administration, levy up to one lakh rupees “in accordance with the provisions of section 10A of the Act”, and “Act” there means the Aircraft Act, 1934. Section 43(2) deems that done under the corresponding provision of the new Act. On a plain reading the corresponding provision is section 32, but section 32(2) requires penalties to be adjudged by officers appointed by gazette order and not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. Rule 50 names a different set of officers. This page does not tell you which officer levies what today, because the Act does not say.

The Ministry's rules listing is not a complete archive. As checked on the Ministry of Civil Aviation rules page for this article, the newest documents listed are aircraft rules dated 2025 and 2026, and the only drone item listed is the February 2022 amendment. The September 2023 amendment is on the Ministry's own website but is not on that listing page. Do not treat that page as the last word.

A replacement statute is in draft. The Ministry circulated a draft Civil Drone Promotion and Regulation Bill, 2025 by a circular dated 16 September 2025, inviting comments by 30 September 2025. That is a draft published for consultation. This page says nothing about what happened to it afterwards, because nothing further was verified.

How to check the position today, including by RTI

Everything above is sourced to the statute and to gazette notifications. What none of it tells you is whether a fresh drone rulebook has been notified since, or which officer holds the penalty power in your state. That is exactly what an RTI is for.

Address it to the Central Public Information Officer, Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Ask for record, not for opinions.

  1. A copy of any notification by which the Drone Rules, 2021 have been continued, re-made or superseded after the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 came into force on 1 January 2025.
  2. The number of complaints made, or sanctions granted in writing, by the Director General of Civil Aviation under section 31 of that Act for offences under section 26, year-wise since 1 January 2025.
  3. The number of penalties levied under rule 50 of the Drone Rules, 2021 since 1 January 2025, with the total amount recovered.
  4. The designation of every officer appointed as a designated officer under section 32(2) of the Act, with the date and number of the gazette order.
  5. The date on which the airspace map on the digital sky platform was last updated for your district.

If the reply is a brush-off, the Section 19 first appeal is your next step and the First Appeal Builder will draft it. If you have never done this before, start at how to file an RTI, then file it online, and let the AI RTI Drafter word the questions. For departments that answer narrowly and hope you go away, The RTI Playbook is the longer treatment.

FAQ

Is a drone an aircraft under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024?

The Act does not say so in those words. It defines “aircraft” in section 2(3) as any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from reactions of the air, other than reactions against the earth's surface, and a drone answers that description. The words “drone” and “unmanned” appear nowhere in the Act. Treat the coverage as a reading of the definition, which is how the Drone Rules, 2021 were framed under the predecessor statute.

Can I really be fined one crore rupees for flying an unregistered drone?

Nothing found supports that. One crore rupees is the ceiling the Act fixes for the offences it creates itself, and for what a rule made under sections 10 to 17 may provide. What is actually prescribed for drones is rule 50 of the Drone Rules, 2021, which caps the penalty at one lakh rupees. A registration failure under rule 14 is a rules matter, not a section 26 offence, unless the flying itself endangered someone.

Do I need permission to fly over my own farm or my own terrace?

Owning the land below does not decide it. Rule 22 turns on the zone, not the ownership: prior permission is required in a red zone or a yellow zone, and is not required in a green zone. Rule 21 still requires the remote pilot to check the digital sky platform for restrictions before every flight, wherever the flight is.

Can my neighbour get me prosecuted under section 26?

Not directly. Section 31(1) says no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint by, or with the previous written sanction of, the Director General of Civil Aviation, the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, or the Director General of the Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau. A complaint from a neighbour has to persuade one of those offices first, and section 31(2) gives that office one year from the date the offence came to its knowledge.

Are the Drone Rules, 2021 still valid now that the Aircraft Act, 1934 is repealed?

Section 43(2) is the answer. It deems anything done under the repealed Act, expressly including any rule made under it, to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, so far as it is not inconsistent with the new Act. That is the clause the whole drone rulebook now rests on. Section 43(3) preserves section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on top of it.

Is a section 26 offence compoundable?

This page will not tell you it is. Section 30(1) allows compounding of an offence “not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, or punishable with imprisonment and also with fine”, for an amount not exceeding one crore rupees as may be prescribed, and section 30(2) bars it for a repeat offence within five years. The Act publishes no list of which offences fall inside that description, so ask the Directorate General of Civil Aviation rather than relying on a website.

Sources