MCA probe flags forged DGCA NOC by Drone Federation of India directors, recommends penal action

A Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) inspection report has recorded serious allegations concerning the affairs of Drone Federation India (DFI), including the alleged submission of a forged No-Objection Certificate (NOC) purportedly issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

According to the inspection report, MCA Assistant Director Altaf M. Shaikh recommended penal action against three DFI directors and company secretary Anoop Kumar Pandey under Sections 448 read with 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, in connection with the alleged document.

The report followed DFI's application to change its name from “Drone Federation India” to “Drone Federation of India.” The proposed name had reportedly faced an objection because it could suggest government patronage. DFI subsequently submitted a purported DGCA NOC as part of the process.

The inspection report states that DGCA informed MCA that the NOC was not genuine and that the file number mentioned in the document did not exist in DGCA records. It further records that the signature on the NOC was attributed to an officer who had retired before the date appearing on the document.

On pages 59–60 of the inspection report, the officer records that the allegedly false DGCA document was submitted with RUN applications and concludes that the three directors and company secretary were liable for penal action under Sections 448 read with 447.

The Pioneer has accessed the Ministry of corporate affairs investigation report. 

The report also records a separate alleged irregularity involving a director's signature on a clarification letter. According to the findings, the signature was allegedly copied from a Board Resolution, with penal liability recorded under Section 158.

However, documents connected with the subsequent prosecution before the 37th Court, Fort, Mumbai, indicate a significant difference between the inspection findings and the charges ultimately pursued.

In Special Case No. 578/2026, filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, DFI and directors Rahat Kulshreshtha, Pravin Vinod Prajapati and Vipul Singh are proceeded against under Sections 134(8), 129(7) and 128(6) of the Companies Act. The provisions relate to corporate reporting, financial statements and maintenance of books of account.

The prosecution does not invoke the Sections 448 and 447 provisions cited by the inspection officer in relation to the alleged forged DGCA NOC.

The MCA's subsequent action communication specifically directed the Registrar of Companies to proceed on Parts B and C of the inspection report, while the alleged forgery finding appears in Part A.

The apparent difference has become a subject of CVC Complaint No. 16240/2026, which alleges that officials failed to act on the Part A findings and raises allegations of possible corruption. The allegations contained in the complaint have not been established.

The matter also comes amid separate scrutiny of the DGCA by the Central Bureau of Investigation in two corruption cases in 2026, including cases involving former Director of Flying Training Capt. Anil Gill and serving Deputy Director General Mudavath Devula over alleged bribery linked to drone-import approvals.

Those cases are independent of the DFI matter and do not establish wrongdoing by DFI or its directors. However, the combination of the MCA inspection findings and the subsequent prosecution has raised questions about regulatory transparency and the manner in which serious findings are carried forward into enforcement proceedings.

The unresolved issue remains why the alleged forgery finding recorded in the MCA inspection report and accompanied by a recommendation for penal action did not form part of the subsequent prosecution under the same provisions.

On the serious allegation DFI president Smit Shah issues a statement and said: “The matter is currently subjudice, and we categorically deny any wrongdoing. Our legal team is examining the matter and will respond appropriately before the competent forum. Given the ongoing proceedings, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this stage.”