Summary: The Civil Drone (Promotion And Regulation) Bill, 2025

Theme

Drone Rules, 2021

Civil Drone Bill, 2025

What Has Changed

Implications for Industry

1. Legal Basis

These were issued as subordinate legislation under the Aircraft Act, 1934 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024). Their scope was largely limited to permissions, compliance, and administrative regulation

If enacted, this Bill will create a stand-alone Act with full statutory force. All further rules, and policymaking for drones will be under this Bill.

Drone regulation moves from an executive rules framework to a primary legislation framework with parliamentary oversight.

Stronger enforceability; creates statutory rights and obligations. The challenge is that since most of the operational framework will come through delegated legislation there is a lack of clarity at present.

2. Applicability

The Rules applied to Indian citizens and entities operating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing less than 500 kilograms.¹ They excluded the Armed Forces and UAS above 500 kilograms.

Same under 500 kg scope but includes foreign citizens and any person engaged in drone activity in India.²

The regime has widened from a focus on Indian operators to a comprehensive framework covering all categories of stakeholders, including foreign citizens and entities.

The Bill now captures the entire value chain of the drone ecosystem. Not only operators, but also, but also the trainers, importers, designers etc. who are engaging with a drone in India. For industry, this could translate into broader compliance obligations across activities that were earlier outside the regulatory spotlight.

3. Definitions

The Rules defined categories such as model remotely piloted aircraft systems, nano-to-large weight classes, the Digital Sky platform, remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), the "No Permission, No Take-off" (NPNT) requirement, prototype UAS, geo-fencing, and type certificates.³

The Bill adds new definitions, including mandatory safety features, mandatory security features, "accident," "compensation," and "airworthy." It also revises the definitions of green and yellow zones, and expands the definition of "accident" to include property damage.⁴

The Bill broadens the definitional framework to capture safety obligations and liability triggers, and explicitly recognizes property damage as part of an "accident."

Since the Bill also empowers the government to frame detailed rules, further definitions may be introduced through subordinate legislation.

The new concept of "airworthy" aligns drones more closely with aviation-grade safety and maintenance standards.

The Bill leaves scope for further definitions to be introduced through delegated legislation, creating ongoing regulatory unpredictability

4. Regulatory Bodies

Under the Drone Rules, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is the key implementing authority, with oversight through Digital Sky.

The Bill makes DGCA the statutory regulator with enforcement powers, while also allowing the government to delegate functions to other authorities.⁵

Police can seize drones, documents, or devices in case of violations,⁶ and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will handle accident-related claims arising out of UAS operations affecting persons or property.⁷

The Bill enables multi-body oversight relating to different specified UAS operations while DGCA will still remain the primary statutory authority.

The proposed law creates a tighter monitoring and enforcement action against non-compliance.

5. UIN

Under the Drone Rules, all drones had to obtain a Unique Identification Number (UIN) through Digital Sky before operation.⁸ However, Rule 42 carved out an exemption for unmanned aircraft system operations conducted specifically for research, development, and testing.

The Bill requires every drone to be registered and issued a UIN before ownership, operation, sale, or transfer.⁹ The mechanism will be decided through Rules.¹⁰ Unlike Rule 42 of the current rules, it does not contain any language providing exemptions for R&D

On the face of it- it does not appear to be a major change, but the operationalization has been moved to delegated legislation- so there is no clarity as yet. It's worth noting that Section 6 of the Bill prohibits all UAS operations without a UIN, while Rule 42 had permitted certain R&D and testing operations without one.

Until the new rules are notified, there may be a period of uncertainty around whether activities such as R&D and testing continue to benefit from exemption.

6. Manufacturing

The Rules imposed only general compliance requirements on manufacturers.¹¹

The Bill prohibits the manufacture or sale of drones without a type certificate unless exempted and includes online sales within its scope.¹²

Explicit statutory prohibition on manufacturing without type certificate unless exempted, with criminal penalties for violation

This is sharp deviation from the earlier rules. The requirement to have type certification to manufacture has grave implications for the ability of companies to design and innovate. Manufacturers must implement tighter supply chain controls, ensure compliance in e-commerce channels, and be prepared for direct liability if certification rules are not met.

7. Type Certification

Under the 2021 Rules, type certification was required based on recommendations from QCI or an authorized testing entity, but exemptions were given for model RPAS and nano UAS.¹³ Type certification was an obligation limited to the operators of UAS.¹⁴

The Bill requires every drone to have a DGCA-issued type certificate unless exempted by rules.¹⁵ It ties certification directly to compliance with mandatory safety and security features and expressly prohibits tampering with them.¹⁶

The Bill expands the obligation of a type certification even for manufacturing.

The shift is from a flexible framework with clear exemptions to a statutory regime where certification is the default and exemptions are uncertain. Type certification is now legally inseparable from safety and security compliance, and tampering with type certified features is criminalized.

While the Drone Rules, 2021 remain in force until replaced, the Bill signals a more stringent certification regime ahead. In the interim, there may be periods of uncertainty around how exemptions (such as for model or nano UAS) are applied.

Further, manufacturers of UAS have to now obtain type certification for the UAS they manufacture.

8. Safety Features

The Rules listed specific requirements such as NPNT, geo-fencing, and real-time tracking.¹⁷

The Bill makes it a statutory requirement for drones to include mandatory safety and security features as notified, and prohibits tampering with them.

The approach shifts from a fixed list of features in the Rules to an obligation under the Bill, where the specific features will be prescribed later through notifications. There is now criminal liability for tampering.

Companies must continue meeting the listed requirements under the Rules for now, but should expect additional or revised features once the Bill's framework is operational. There is a risk of uncertainty during the transition.

9. Insurance

The Rules did not make insurance explicitly mandatory and were silent on compensation for third parties. The Rules only mentioned that Motor Vehicles Act and Rules would apply to UAS.¹⁸

The Bill requires all drone operations to be covered by third-party insurance.¹⁹ It also fixes statutory compensation in case of accidents: ₹2.5 lakh in case of death and ₹1 lakh in case of grievous hurt²⁰, with claims to be adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.²¹

Expanded insurance regime from under the Rules to a statutory mandate for both insurance and compensation.

Operators will need to plan for mandatory insurance and potential liability exposure. While this adds compliance costs, it also has the potential to create predictability.

10. Claims Resolution

Under the Rules, there was no specific framework for claims and dispute resolution.

The Bill creates a dedicated compensation framework through Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, with a six-month filing window²², appeals to the High Court²³, and enforcement of awards as decrees.²⁴

Claims move from ordinary civil litigation in any such cases to a specialized quasi-judicial process with fixed procedures and timelines.

Victims get faster and structured relief, while operators face a clearer but more formalised claims mechanism.

11. Penalties and enforcement

Enforcement was limited to administrative actions such as suspension or cancellation of authorizations under the Aircraft Act, along with a limited penalty of up to ₹1 lakh.²⁵

The Bill introduces criminal penalties including imprisonment of up to 3 years and fines of up to ₹1 lakh, depending on the violation.²⁶ It also provides for compounding of certain offences²⁷ and gives authorities powers to detain drones and related equipment.²⁸

The penalty regime shifts from primarily administrative sanctions to a statutory framework with higher deterrence, including potential jail terms and confiscation of drones.

Operators face a more stringent enforcement environment, where violations may attract criminal liability. The broader definition of "accident," now covering property damage as well as injury or death, increases liability exposure for operators and insurers. This heightens the importance of compliance, though certain contraventions remain compoundable.

The powers granted to law enforcement to detain drones and related equipment is concerning and can result in operational challenges.

12. Airspace Zones

The Rules gave precise definitions: green zones allowed operations up to 400 ft above ground level (200 ft in the 8–12 km band from an aerodrome), yellow zones covered controlled airspace requiring ATC clearance (including airspace above 400 ft in green zones and above 200 ft in the 8–12 km band), and red zones were prohibited areas where flights required Central Government approval.²⁹

The Bill defines green, yellow, and red zones only in broad terms: green zones are airspace as prescribed by the Centre; yellow and red zones are areas where operations are prohibited unless permitted by the Central Government.³⁰ It does not set altitude ceilings or distance bands and leaves the details to future rules and notifications.

The framework shifts from detailed zone classifications with fixed parameters to general statutory recognition, with the specifics deferred to Rules that will be made.

The 2021 Rules continue to govern zone parameters for now, but once replaced, operators will need to adapt to the new definitions when notified. During the transition, uncertainty may arise in applying the Bill's broad definitions alongside the Rules, requiring case-by-case assessment.

13. R&D Operations

Under the Drone Rules, Rule 42 exempted R&D entities, startups, and manufacturers from requirements such as type certification, UIN, permission, for operations in green zones.³¹

The Bill does not contain explicit statutory exemptions for R&D, though it introduces a definition of "prototype" and leaves scope for any exemptions to be provided through Rules to be made.³²

The Bill however explicitly recognizes that Rules can be made for VLOS and BVLOS operations.³³

Previous R&D exemptions are not explicitly carried forward in the Bill. Any exemptions for R&D would come out through the Rules to be made.

Startups and research entities may face uncertainty until rules clarify whether R&D and prototype operations will continue to benefit from exemptions, creating potential compliance burdens in the interim.

14. Import/Export

Under the Drone Rules, DGFT regulated imports. There was nothing to govern exports under the Rules.³⁴

Under the Bill, the DGFT continues to regulate imports and also exports³⁵; Centre can makes Rules to regulate import and now also export of UAS to secure safety of their operations.³⁶

Central Government can now by an order, prohibit imports or exports of UAS or any class when such restriction is found necessary.

Drone companies must now factor in export restrictions and possible prohibitions, adding another layer of compliance in global supply and sales chains.

15. BVLOS Operations

The Rules had no specific provision or recognition for Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations and was contingent on the creation of separate a Type Certification framework for BVLOS

operations.

The Bill does not directly address BVLOS operations but explicitly recognizes them within its rule-making framework.³⁷

The law now provides a legal foundation for BVLOS, though without immediate operationalization.

This creates a pathway for future BVLOS operations, but timelines for implementation remain uncertain, requiring companies to track regulatory developments closely.

16. Federal Structure

Under the Drone Rules, regulatory powers were centralized in the DGCA.³⁸

The Bill allows States to create red zones (previously only limited to creating temporary red zones), issue tribunal rules,³⁹ and enables wider multi-agency delegation such as by giving certain powers to local police departments relating to UAS activities.

There is a shift from a centralized regime to one where States and other agencies have a more direct role.

Companies may face multi-jurisdictional compliance requirements and will need structured engagement with both central and state authorities.