Reflections from Drone Expo 2026, Yashobhoomi, Dwarka
Drone footage cannot always be treated like an ordinary mobile-phone video. A drone operation can generate several interconnected sources of information: the camera file, flight-controller data, the Ground Control Station and, where applicable, records associated with the Digital Sky platform. Preserving only the final video may therefore leave significant gaps in establishing how, when and where the recording was created.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) recognises electronic and digital records and places their proof within the framework of Section 63.1 The statutory certificate prescribed under Section 63(4) requires particulars concerning the device or source and disclosure of the hash value of the electronic record.2 This assumes particular importance where the integrity of digital evidence may later be questioned.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India is significant in this context. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 63(4) certification framework and described a hash value as an “electronic fingerprint” capable of helping verify the authenticity and integrity of digital data.3 At the same time, the Court clarified that the question whether Part B must be signed exclusively by an expert notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was not conclusively decided.3
The earlier jurisprudence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, remains important in understanding the development of electronic-evidence law.4 The evidentiary inquiry, however, should not stop at the certificate. Authenticity, preservation and continuity of custody remain critical to the weight and reliability of the material placed before the court.
The circumstances in which the footage was captured also matter. The Drone Rules, 2021 establish requirements concerning registration and the verification of airspace restrictions, including restrictions applicable to red and yellow zones.5 Thus, the evidentiary question may intersect with the legality of the underlying drone operation itself.
The central lesson is simple: a drone video is not merely a picture from the sky. It is a digital record supported by a technological trail. For investigators, businesses and litigators, preserving that trail from capture to courtroom may determine whether compelling footage becomes compelling evidence.
The courtroom question is therefore not merely: “What does the drone video show?” It is: “Can you prove where it came from, how it was captured, and that its integrity was preserved?”
Footnotes
1 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47 of 2023, §§ 61–63 (India).
2 Id. § 63(4)(c) & sched. The Schedule requires, inter alia, identification of the digital source and disclosure of the hash value and hashing algorithm.
3 Pune Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026, Order (S.C. May 22, 2026). The Court held that the hash-value and expert-certification requirements have a rational nexus with authenticity and integrity; it expressly left open the question whether Part B must be signed only by an expert notified under § 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
5 Drone Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 589(E), rr. 14, 21–22 (India), Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India.