Kerala High Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against US Tourists
The Kerala High Court has temporarily halted criminal proceedings against two American tourists in a case involving drone activity near a naval area in Fort Kochi. The case, titled Kate Michelle Phelps & anr v State of Kerala, was presided over by Justice CS Dias, who issued the stay after recognizing that the First Information Report (FIR) filed against the tourists relied on the obsolete Aircraft Act, 1934. This Act has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, effective from 2025.
Interim Order Based on Obsolete Legislation
On June 5, Justice Dias ruled that the FIR’s invocation of the repealed Aircraft Act warranted a two-month stay on the proceedings against the tourists, Katie Michelle Phelps and Christopher Ross Harvey, both from California, USA. “Upon reviewing the facts and materials, especially noting that the Aircraft Act, 1934 was repealed as of January 1, 2025, by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and considering that the petitioners were charged under the repealed Act, I am convinced that the petitioners have established a prima facie case for an interim order,” stated Justice Dias.
Incident Details and Legal Challenges
The incident under scrutiny occurred on March 21, 2026, near Chariot Junction in Fort Kochi, an area classified as a restricted zone due to its proximity to naval quarters and other defense facilities. According to police, the tourists operated a drone and captured video footage without obtaining the necessary permissions. Consequently, electronic devices including a drone and a laptop were seized, and an FIR was filed under Section 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, Rules 22 and 49 of the Drone Rules 2021, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Defense Argument and Court’s Response
The defense, led by Advocate Niharika Hema Raj, argued that the charges were legally flawed, as the penal provisions of the Aircraft Act were no longer in effect at the time of the alleged offense. The defense highlighted that the new aviation law mandates prior sanction from a competent authority before a court can take cognizance of an offense, a procedure not followed in this case. Furthermore, the defense argued that there was no evidence linking Harvey to the alleged crimes, with the FIR detailing that only Phelps operated the drone. Harvey was reportedly contacted by police only after the incident.
In consideration of these arguments, the High Court has granted a two-month stay on further criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
