Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Drone Prathap Over Sodium-Water Experiment

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against science educator and content creator Pratap N M, popularly known as 'Drone Prathap', over a viral video depicting a sodium-water chemical explosion. 

Delivering the judgment, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that while the Court did not endorse the manner in which the demonstration was conducted, the material on record failed to establish any malicious intent or criminal objective required for prosecution. The Court concluded that the act was primarily educative in nature, thereby relieving the petitioner from undergoing the ordeal of a criminal investigation and trial.

The case arose from a chemical experiment carried out in December 2024 at a private agricultural farm owned by Jithendra Jain in I D Halli village, Madhugiri taluk, Tumakuru district. To demonstrate a scientific reaction for 10th-standard NCERT students, Prathap created an artificial pond measuring approximately 10 by 10 feet filled with 1,000 litres of water and placed 100 grams of sodium metal into it. The resulting chemical explosion was recorded and uploaded to his YouTube channel for public viewing.

Following the video's online release, the Medigeshi Police registered an FIR against Prathap and the farm owner. Authorities invoked Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, concerning explosions likely to endanger life or property, alongside Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances. Prathap was arrested in December 2024 and remanded to judicial custody before obtaining bail and deleting the video.

Seeking to set aside the proceedings, Prathap filed a petition in the High Court. His counsel submitted that the controlled experiment occurred away from public and residential areas with necessary safety measures in place. It was contended that the video illustrated a standard textbook reaction and that sodium by itself is not an explosive substance under the law. The petitioner further stated that he had openly shared the content for student education rather than attempting to conceal any actions.

In its ruling, the High Court observed that Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act requires an act to be performed unlawfully and maliciously. 

Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that sodium in isolation is not classified as an explosive substance and that the prosecution failed to satisfy the essential statutory ingredients. The Bench emphasized that Prathap voluntarily uploaded the demonstration for educational purposes, confirming the absence of any malicious intent to cause public harm.

The Court also granted him liberty to move the jurisdictional magistrate court for the return of his seized electronic equipment, including his iPhone, iPad, and camera.

Case title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No. 469 of 2025)