Judicial Precedents On Drone Surveillance In Criminal Investigations
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
This case did not deal specifically with drones but was the landmark ruling on the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Surveillance, including technological surveillance, must pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Any intrusion into privacy (such as surveillance using drones) must be sanctioned by law and subject to judicial oversight.
Significance:
Set the constitutional foundation for challenging unauthorized drone surveillance.
Established that surveillance tools must be used only for legitimate state purposes, with proper checks and balances.
2. PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301 – Telephone Tapping Case
Facts:
Though concerning telephone tapping, this case laid foundational principles on government surveillance and privacy, which now apply to modern methods like drone monitoring.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Surveillance must follow a legal procedure.
Authorities must record reasons and obtain prior approval for surveillance activities.
Relevance to Drone Surveillance:
Drone use by police or investigative agencies must be legally authorized and not arbitrary.
Surveillance without due process violates constitutional rights.
3. Bombay High Court – Jan Swasthya Abhiyan v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
Facts:
This case involved drone surveillance used for COVID-19 containment and public health monitoring in slum areas.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court upheld limited drone surveillance for public safety, but emphasized that it must not violate individual privacy.
Surveillance must be proportionate and restricted to the specific public purpose.
Significance:
Courts permitted drone use with strict conditions.
Reinforced that criminal investigations or public interest cannot justify blanket surveillance.
4. Himachal Pradesh High Court – Court on its own motion v. State of H.P. (2021)
Facts:
Drones were used for monitoring lockdown violations and criminal activity during the pandemic.
Judgment:
The High Court observed that:
Drones can be used for crime prevention, crowd control, and evidence collection, provided data collected is not misused or retained beyond a reasonable period.
There must be accountability and oversight mechanisms.
Key Takeaway:
Drones may aid in investigations, but data retention and usage must adhere to constitutional safeguards.
5. Kerala High Court – Digital Rights Foundation v. Union of India (2020)
Facts:
A PIL challenged the use of drones by police for monitoring citizens during lockdown and potential criminal investigations.
Judgment:
The court rejected blanket drone usage and emphasized prior consent, limited purpose, and legal backing.
Unregulated drone surveillance was considered infringing on the right to privacy.
Importance:
Reinforced that even in criminal investigations, surveillance cannot be a free-for-all.
Law enforcement must strike a balance between public interest and individual rights.
6. Supreme Court – People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL II), 2003
Facts:
Though focused on intelligence surveillance rather than drones, this case is key for its directives on oversight mechanisms for state surveillance.
Judgment:
The Court held that surveillance without proper statutory backing is illegal and provided frameworks for monitoring surveillance activities, which apply to drones as well.
Relevance:
Drone-based surveillance must be subject to judicial or executive oversight.
Helps protect citizens from abuse of surveillance technologies in criminal cases.
7. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
Facts:
The case related to restrictions on communication and surveillance in Jammu & Kashmir post abrogation of Article 370.
Judgment:
The Court stressed on transparency, necessity, and proportionality in surveillance operations.
Surveillance, including aerial or digital, must be clearly justified by a legitimate state interest.
Impact on Drone Surveillance:
Reinforces that excessive or unwarranted drone surveillance violates rights.
Surveillance must not be a tool for blanket state control or intimidation.
✅ Key Legal Principles on Drone Surveillance from Case Law:
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality | Drone surveillance must be backed by a valid law or rule. |
| Proportionality | The degree of surveillance must match the severity of the criminal threat. |
| Necessity | Must be used only when essential, not for general observation. |
| Oversight Mechanism | There must be judicial or executive accountability in using drones. |
| Privacy and Data Protection | Surveillance must respect individual rights under Article 21, and collected data must be handled lawfully. |
| Time and Purpose Limitation | Drone usage must be specific to an incident, location, and purpose, not general or continuous. |
🔍 Conclusion:
The Indian judiciary has consistently held that technological surveillance, including drones, must not violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy under Article 21. While courts recognize the utility of drones in crime control and investigation, they have laid down strict parameters to prevent misuse.
So far, no Supreme Court case has explicitly ruled on drones in a purely criminal investigation, but the principles from privacy and surveillance jurisprudence fully apply.
RELATED Blog
0 comments