Lack of Anti-Drone Teams: A Growing Threat to VVIP Security

Illustration (Picture Above): Anti-drone teams neutralizing UAV threats while VVIP is secured.

In the modern era, the security of Very Very Important Persons (VVIPs) faces a new and complex challenge: drones. While traditional security measures—such as perimeter security, intelligence gathering, close protection, and bulletproof vehicles—have evolved over decades, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have introduced a disruptive and unpredictable threat. The absence of dedicated anti-drone teams significantly compromises VVIP safety.

Understanding the Drone Threat

Drones are small, agile, and inexpensive to operate, yet they can inflict disproportionate damage. They are increasingly used for:

• Surveillance: Capturing images, videos, and intercepting communications from vantage points inaccessible to ground personnel.
• Delivery of harmful payloads: Carrying explosives, chemical agents, or other hazardous materials.
• Disruption and distraction: Even unarmed drones can create confusion, disrupt schedules, and test security readiness.

With the proliferation of consumer-grade drones, the boundary between hobbyists and malicious actors has blurred, making even low-cost drones a serious security concern.

Real-World Incidents

Several incidents worldwide have highlighted the severity of drone threats:

1. Vatican, 2019: A drone carrying a small payload was detected flying over the Vatican.
2. India, 2021: Unauthorized drones were spotted near a VIP rally area, halting proceedings temporarily.
3. USA, 2020: Multiple drone intrusions over the White House forced a reevaluation of perimeter security measures.

These events demonstrate that traditional security methods alone are insufficient.

Limitations of Current Security Protocols

Despite extensive measures, several gaps remain:

1. Lack of specialized units: Few security forces maintain dedicated anti-drone teams.
2. Technological inadequacy: Standard radar and CCTV often fail to detect small drones at low altitudes.
3. Legal and operational challenges: Interception rules vary by jurisdiction, and indiscriminate neutralization could endanger civilians.

Without proactive strategies, these gaps can be exploited by malicious actors.

The Need for Anti-Drone Teams

Anti-drone units provide a multifaceted solution:

1. Detection and monitoring: Using radar, RF scanners, and optical sensors to identify threats early.
2. Neutralization: Drone jammers, net guns, and interception drones can safely disable UAVs.
3. Integration with existing security: Coordination with close protection units, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies ensures seamless response.
4. Training and simulation: Regular drills prepare personnel for rapid and effective action.

Countries like Israel, the USA, and the UK have already invested heavily in anti-drone technology, recognizing its importance.

Legal Framework

In India, the operation of drones is governed primarily by the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) – Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), 2021, issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The regulations mandate drone registration, pilot licensing, and adherence to specific no-fly zones, including areas around airports, defense installations, and government buildings. Unauthorized drone activity near sensitive zones, such as VVIP events, can attract penalties under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and related rules. Additionally, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions can apply in cases of privacy violation, espionage, or use of drones for unlawful purposes. Enforcement remains a challenge due to limited anti-drone teams and technological gaps in detection and neutralization.

While the Drone Rules, 2021 are still the core governing document (with refinements and amendments in 2025), a Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 was released in September 2025, proposing stricter penalties (including up to 3 years imprisonment for serious violations like unregistered operations). It has not yet been enacted, so the 2021 Rules remain primary.

Globally, countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Israel, and China have established more specialized legal frameworks to address drone threats. In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates drone operations, complemented by the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) authorities for security-sensitive zones.

The UK enforces strict airspace regulations and penalties under the Air Navigation Order, while Israel, a leader in anti-drone technology, integrates legal rules with mandatory counter-drone systems for critical installations. These frameworks emphasize a combination of regulation, mandatory technology (like geofencing), and specialized response teams to counter both accidental and malicious drone threats.

Drone Related Indian and International Cases

1. Unauthorized Drone Flights near Sensitive Areas (e.g., Delhi incidents): Civilians flying drones without DGCA permission near restricted zones (like near India Gate or Vijay Chowk) have faced enforcement under DGCA Drone Rules, IPC Section 188 (disobedience) – now Section 223 BNS – and IT Act provisions for privacy violations. Drones are often confiscated, with fines imposed for safety and security risks.
2. Drone Sightings near Mumbai Airport (e.g., 2019–2025 incidents at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport): Drones spotted in no-fly zones near airports led to FIRs under DGCA rules, IPC Section 336 (endangering life) – now Section 125 BNS – and related provisions. Police seize drones and pursue operators, emphasizing hazards to aviation safety.
3. Robert Masih vs. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2025): The court denied anticipatory bail to an accused allegedly financing cross-border drug smuggling via drones from Pakistan. It highlighted the rising threat to national security and youth from such organized crimes.
4. RaceDayQuads v. FAA (USA, 2022): A federal appeals court upheld the FAA’s Remote ID rule (requiring drones to broadcast identity/location). The challenge claiming unconstitutionality failed, affirming national authority for safety-focused drone regulations.
5. Xizmo Media Productions LLC v. City of New York (USA, ongoing/resolved in favour of change): A media company challenged NYC’s “Avigation” law (effective drone ban in city limits) as violating free speech and federal airspace pre-emption. The suit advanced, contributing to eventual authorization for licensed drone operations in the city.
6. 2015 Tokyo Drone Incident (Japan): A drone carrying traces of radioactive material (cesium from Fukushima sand) landed on the Prime Minister’s residence roof as an anti-nuclear protest. The levels were harmless, but it prompted stricter drone laws in Japan. The operator received a suspended sentence, prompting stricter laws banning flights near sensitive sites and highlighting national security risks.

These cases illustrate evolving judicial approaches to drone misuse, safety, privacy, and security across jurisdictions.

Policy and Regulatory Measures

Operational teams alone cannot guarantee safety. Strong regulatory frameworks are critical:

1. Airspace restriction zones: Enforced no-drone zones around VVIP events with real-time monitoring.
2. Mandatory registration and tracking: All drones must be registered and equipped with tracking.
3. Criminalization of unauthorized drone activity: Strict penalties act as deterrents.
4. Pre-authorization for drone flights: Permission required for drones near sensitive areas.
5. Integration with national air traffic control systems: Ensures drones do not breach restricted airspace.
6. Geofencing technology: Built-in restrictions prevent entry into sensitive zones.
7. Mandatory safety protocols for public events: Organizers must deploy anti-drone measures.
8. Public awareness campaigns: Educating drone operators about no-fly zones and legal consequences.
9. International cooperation: Sharing intelligence to track cross-border drone threats.
10. Periodic audits and drills: Regular simulations assess and improve readiness.
11. Research and development incentives: Promote AI detection systems, interception drones, and electromagnetic jammers.

Combining policy, technology, trained personnel, and public cooperation creates a comprehensive, multi-layered defense against aerial threats.

Conclusion

The lack of anti-drone teams is a serious vulnerability in VVIP security. While drones pose unconventional threats, proactive measures—including specialized units, advanced technology, and strong regulations—can mitigate risks effectively. Governments and security agencies must prioritize anti-drone capabilities to ensure the safety of high-profile individuals in an increasingly drone-enabled world.