India Bans Drones

India Today reports:

India is one the few places on the planet where civilian drones can be legally used. That said, with many commercial organisations planning to use drones, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has announced that till proper rules and regulations are formulated use of drones in India is illegal . . . .

India Today and BGR are reporting that this ban extends to "civilian drones." But the ban is far broader, according to this public notice from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The notice states:

DGCA is in the process of formulating the regulations (and globally harmonize those) for certification & operation for use of [unmanned aircraft systems, or] UAS in the Indian Civil Airspace. Till such regulations are issued, no non government agency, organization, or an individual will launch a UAS in Indian Civil Airspace for any purpose whatsoever.

This prohibition on drones is notably broad -- it restricts hobbyist drones, commercial drones, and government drones.

This spells problems for Amazon, which had been planning to use India's (formerly) permissive regulatory environment to test drone-based package delivery services. I have not seen any reactions by the company to this sudden, universal prohibition of drone use. But I suspect Amazon will be carrying out its drone testing somewhere else in light of this ban.

Drones raise safety and privacy concerns. To an extent, these concerns are warranted, and governments may be correct to impose regulations that address privacy and safety concerns. But effective regulations should allow for the continued use of this developing technology. India's sudden and complete ban on drones is far too broad, and will hinder the development of drone technology and the economic opportunities that this technology can (and was about to) create.

The Longest Judicial Opinions

Since starting law school over three years ago, I have occasionally wondered how long the longest judicial opinion is. While I have already blogged about the world's longest constitution, the length and origin of the longest judicial opinion has remained a mystery to me.

But this weekend, I decided to finally look into the issue -- and I found that somebody has already done the work at finding the longest opinion. The Trial Warrior blog has this 2012 post on the longest judgments in the world. Only one of the top seven judgments originates in the United States, and it ranks as sixth on the list. While all of the opinions on the list are hefty, the top three are in a class all their own.

The longest judicial opinion to originate in the United States appears to be the the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia's opinion in McConnell v. FEC. There, three judges issued a per curiam opinion followed by their individual opinions. The entire ruling takes up 743 pages.

But the longest opinion in the United States does not even come close to the longest opinion in the world. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court released an 8,000 page opinion in the long-running Ayodhya dispute. The dispute centered on the ownership of a plot of land with religious significance to a variety of parties, and had been in the courts for 60 years before the High Court ruling.

Commentators have criticized the United States Supreme Court for its increasingly lengthy rulings. But the Court has a long way to go if it wants to break into the ranks of the longest opinions in the world.

Moot Court Competitors Sue Competition Organizers Over "Arbitrary and Blasphemous" Interpretation of Rules

Bar and Bench reports that several students from KLE Society's Law College have sued the principal of BMS College of Law over an unfavorable moot court competition outcome. It seems that the KLE students won against their opponents in the semifinal round of the competition, but ended up not advancing to the final round of the competition. From the article:

It all started in the semi-final rounds of the B M Sreenivasaiah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, organized by BMS Law College in March this year. At the end of the semi-final rounds, KLE Society's moot teem was left flummoxed, wondering how the sweetness of victory could turn into that despicable feeling of being cheated. Having beaten their opponents convincingly in the smi-final round, the team were in for a rude shock. They were told that the losing semi-finalist of the other round would go through to the final rounds, on the basis of cumulative marking. In the opinion of the BMS Principal, the term "knock out" meant that the organizers have the power to eliminate a team on the basis of cumulative marking.

The aggrieved KLE Society students have filed suit for a declaratory judgment that their loss was due to an unfair interpretation of the competition's rules. They are also suing for emotional suffering. From paragraph 16 of the complaint (included in the Bar and Bench Article):

That, the Plaintiffs despite having performed exceedingly well, by the arbitrary and blasphemous attitude and actions of the First Defendant had to bear the pain and suffering of a loss which they were not entitled to. Injustice was inflicted blatantly and the First Defendant having no remorse whatsoever just dismissed the Plaintiffs without providing a suitable remedy.

The complaint itself is extremely dramatic, and a delight to read. Here is another excerpt -- this time from paragraph 18:

Lawlessness prevailed in a law college and the Plaintiffs deeply condemn this attitude of theirs. If the Defendants intended to change and interpret the rules like the way they wanted to, they should at least have had the decency and courtesy to inform the Plaintiffs of the same before the competition began, failing which they have miserably failed in upholding the principles of law which they boast of teaching in their institution.

It seems to me like the competition's organizers' reading of the rules was strained, and perhaps arbitrary. But I doubt that the KLE students' dramatic, litigious response will help improve their reputations in the legal community.

Due Process is a Good Idea Because...

...it helps us avoid situations like this:

[A] man was arrested because he was drinking tea in a "suspicious manner" at a road side stall...

The law permitting preventative detention of somebody an officer thinks is about to commit a crime probably contributed to Vijay Patil's arrest.  Even with that law in place, Justice Patel of the Bombay High Court was appalled.  The Times of India reports:

The judgment penned by Justice Patel said, "This is bewildering. We were unaware that the law required anyone to give an explanation for having tea, whether in the morning, noon or night. One might take tea in a variety of ways, not all of them always elegant or delicate, some of them perhaps even noisy. But we know of no way to drink tea 'suspiciously'."

He added, "The ingestion of a cup that cheers demands no explanation. And while cutting chai is permissible, now even fashionable, cutting corners with the law is not."

The prosecutor tried to justify the arrest by pointing to an extensive record of proceedings against Patil.  The High Court pointed out that this record was irrelevant with regard to whether Patil was about to carry out imminent criminal activity.  Also, most of those proceedings, like this one, ended in acquittals.

(H/T: BBC: News From Elsewhere)