Kerala HC stays criminal case against 2 US tourists booked for flying drone near naval zone

The Kerala High Court recently stayed further proceedings in a criminal case registered against two US tourists accused of flying a drone near a naval zone in Fort Kochi [Kate Michelle Phelps & anr v State of Kerala].

Justice CS Dias passed the interim order after noting that the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them invoked provisions of the now-repealed Aircraft Act, 1934.

The said law was replaced by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, which came into effect in 2025.

The Court, therefore, granted a two-month stay on further criminal proceedings against Katie Michelle Phelps and Christopher Ross Harvey, who hail from California, USA.

"On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the Aircraft Act, 1934 was repealed with effect from 01.01.2025 by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and the petitioners have been charged under the repealed Act, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for an interim order," the June 5 order says.

The case concerned an incident that occurred on March 21, 2026 near Chariot Junction in Fort Kochi, close to naval quarters and other defence establishments.

The police alleged that the American tourists operated a drone and recorded video footage in an area classified as a restricted zone without obtaining permission from the authorities.

A drone, laptop and other electronic devices were seized during the investigation and an FIR was registered against the tourists under Section 10 of the 1934 Aircraft Act, Rules 22 and 49 of the Drone Rules 2021 and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

This was challenged by the two tourists before the High Court.

Their counsel contended that the proceedings initiated against tourists were legally unsustainable as the penal provision invoked against them under the Aircraft Act no longer existed. The Act itself had been repealed and replaced by the new Act, more than a year before the alleged incident took place, the Court was told.

The petitioners argued that the prosecution was initiated without complying with the procedure prescribed under the new aviation law.

They stated that Section 31 of the new Act required prior sanction from the competent authority before a court can take cognisance of an offence and that no such sanction had been obtained in the present case.

They added that there was no material linking the second petitioner, Harvey, to the alleged offences.The First Information Statement clearly stated that the drone was only operated by Katie (the first petitioner), their counsel said. Harvey was not present at the spot and was only contacted later by the police, it was further submitted.

In view of these submissions, the Court proceeded to stay the criminal case against the petitioners for two months.

Advocate Niharika Hema Raj appeared for the petitioners.

[Read Order]