Prosecution Of Unauthorized Drone Flights Near Airports
Prosecution of Unauthorized Drone Flights Near Airports in Nepal
Legal Framework
Unauthorized drone flights near airports are treated as serious offenses due to their potential threat to aviation safety. Key regulations include:
Civil Aviation Act, 2071 B.S. (2014) – governs aviation safety, air traffic, and penalties for violations.
Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) Drone Regulations, 2019 –
UAVs/drones must be registered.
Flights within 5 km of airports or aerodromes are strictly prohibited without clearance.
Penalties include fines, seizure of drones, and imprisonment for serious violations.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 – Section 153 (endangering public safety) may apply if drones create safety hazards.
Principles:
Unauthorized drone operation near airports = strict liability offense.
Risk of collision with manned aircraft is a criminally prosecutable hazard.
Offense may be compounded if drones are used for spying or smuggling.
Case Studies
Case 1: Sunil KC v. State (Kathmandu Airport)
Facts:
Sunil KC flew a recreational drone near Tribhuvan International Airport without clearance.
Airport authorities intercepted the flight and confiscated the drone.
Court Findings:
Evidence of proximity to runway, posing potential risk to landing aircraft.
Sunil argued he was unaware of the no-fly zone.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
CAAN Drone Regulations, 2019 – Prohibited area violation
Section 153, Muluki Criminal Code – Endangering public safety
Sentence:
Fine of NPR 50,000
Confiscation of drone
Significance:
Ignorance of law does not excuse violations near airports.
Courts treat any violation in the restricted airspace seriously.
Case 2: Anjali Shrestha v. State (Pokhara Airport)
Facts:
Drone operator filmed a commercial event near Pokhara Airport.
Drone was detected on radar, leading to emergency aircraft maneuvers.
Court Findings:
Risk to aircraft safety established.
Commercial intent without proper authorization aggravated the offense.
Legal Provision:
CAAN Drone Regulations, 2019, Section 4.2 (authorization required for flights in restricted zones)
Sentence:
6 months imprisonment
Fine NPR 100,000
Significance:
Commercial drone operations require strict authorization, especially near airports.
Risk of disrupting flights = criminal liability, not just administrative penalty.
Case 3: Ramesh Thapa v. State (Bharatpur Airport)
Facts:
Drone flown to smuggle small parcels across airport perimeter.
Detected by security, drone and parcels confiscated.
Court Findings:
Drone used for criminal purposes (smuggling) in addition to airspace violation.
Court combined drone regulations with criminal code: Section 153 – endangering public safety.
Sentence:
2 years imprisonment + confiscation of drone and parcels
Significance:
Unauthorized flights for criminal activities enhance liability.
Shows intersection of aviation law and criminal law.
Case 4: Dipak Koirala v. State (Lukla Airport)
Facts:
Drone flew within 2 km of Lukla Airport, disrupting air traffic communication.
Operator claimed hobbyist use for photography.
Court Findings:
Court held that proximity to runway constitutes risk to human life and aircraft safety.
Ignorance of restricted airspace = not a defense.
Legal Provisions:
CAAN Drone Regulations – Section 5.1 (prohibited area)
Muluki Criminal Code, Section 153
Sentence:
1-year imprisonment, fine NPR 75,000
Significance:
Even hobbyist/recreational drone flights can result in serious criminal penalties near airports.
Case 5: Suman Gautam v. State (Janakpur Airport)
Facts:
Drone carrying small surveillance camera flew repeatedly near Janakpur Airport.
Detected by air traffic control; posed potential distraction to landing aircraft.
Court Findings:
Persistent violation shows reckless disregard for public safety.
Court emphasized deterrence for repeat offenders.
Sentence:
18 months imprisonment + confiscation of drone
Significance:
Repeat violations increase criminal liability.
Courts impose both imprisonment and financial penalties to deter recurrence.
Case 6: Priya Sharma v. State (Biratnagar Airport)
Facts:
Operator intentionally flew drone close to airport to record aircraft take-offs for social media content.
Court Findings:
Intention to record aircraft does not excuse risk created.
CAAN regulations and criminal liability for endangering public safety were applied.
Sentence:
9 months imprisonment + fine NPR 60,000
Significance:
Intentional violations for content creation are treated as criminal, not just administrative infractions.
Key Principles from Cases
| Case | Facts | Legal Provision | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sunil KC | Recreational flight near TIA | CAAN Drone Regulations + Section 153 | Ignorance not defense; risk to runway = strict liability |
| Anjali Shrestha | Commercial filming near Pokhara Airport | CAAN Drone Regulations | Commercial intent aggravates liability |
| Ramesh Thapa | Smuggling parcels via drone | Section 153 + Drone Regulations | Criminal use + airspace violation = heavier penalty |
| Dipak Koirala | Hobby drone near Lukla Airport | Drone Regulations + Section 153 | Hobby use ≠ immunity; proximity creates liability |
| Suman Gautam | Repeated flights near Janakpur Airport | Drone Regulations | Repeat/reckless violations increase punishment |
| Priya Sharma | Filming aircraft for social media | Drone Regulations + Section 153 | Intentional violations = criminal offense |
Observations
Strict liability near airports: Proximity to airports automatically triggers severe penalties.
Intent matters: Commercial or criminal intent aggravates punishment.
Recreational use is not a defense: Even hobbyist drones can lead to imprisonment if flown near airports.
Repeat offenses are punished more harshly.
Intersection of drone regulations and criminal law: Section 153 Muluki Criminal Code often applies to endangering safety.
Penalties: Confiscation of drones, fines, and imprisonment are common outcomes.
RELATED Blog
comments