Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict in Çelebi Security Clearance Row
The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order in a plea filed by Turkey-based Çelebi Airport Services Private Limited, challenging the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security’s (BCAS) decision to revoke its security clearance on the grounds of national security.
A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta briefly heard the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Çelebi today.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, while referring to Rule 12 of the Aircraft Security Rules, stated that no part of the provision had been complied with and that Çelebi was not given any notice or hearing before the decision was taken.
"Rules are required to be placed before the Parliament, and unless Parliament disproves it, it’s deemed to be passed by Parliament, like a stamp of approval. So when you make a rule relating to, my Lords, security at the airport, you know what you’ve made, and therefore you are bound to comply. It is not open for a government to say that 'I made a rule but I will work in breach.' That’s my first contention," he argued.
He also referred to Section 6 of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, which pertains to the power to issue directions. He argued that the power to issue directions is not the same as the power to cancel or revoke a security clearance.
Rohatgi further stated, "You know what you are dealing with—you are dealing with a party that has worked without blemish for the past 17 years. The business cannot come to an end. I have a constitutional right to carry on my business. My right cannot be curtailed in a crippled manner. It's crippled."
In the last hearing, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta raised national security concerns while opposing the plea filed by a Turkey-based company challenging the revocation of its security clearance.
SG Mehta argued that Turkey-based Çelebi was involved in ground handling and cargo operations, which gave them direct access to aircraft and sensitive data, including VIP movement and cargo details, related to both domestic and international flights.
He emphasised that the Union Government retains plenary power even after granting security clearance, allowing it to take decisive action in cases involving national security.Highlighting the unprecedented situation the country is facing, Mehta asserted that in cases involving national security, granting a hearing might defeat the very purpose of the action being taken.
While citing the Supreme Court's judgments, Mehta reiterated that in cases involving national security , principles of natural justice are not mandatorily applicable given the sensitivity of the threat.
Referring to Rule 12 of the Aircraft Security Rules, SG Mehta argued that there was substantial compliance with the rule. The court will continue to hear the matter tomorrow.
On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Turkey-based Çelebi, emphasised that under Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, the company was not given an opportunity to be heard before the revocation of its security clearance.
He contended that the failure to provide such an opportunity led to a violation of the principles of natural justice. He argued that the the company had been operating for the last 17 years without any blemish and that such a sudden revocation took away the employment of nearly 1000.
Proceedings held earlier in the matter
Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Delhi High Court that national security must be placed on the highest pedestal.
"There are two companies. I’m saying this is a national security issue, which is the basis of the judgment, and the order reflects it. There are two contracts — one for airport handling and the other for cargo handling. These sensitive operations where personnel know every nook and cranny of the airport,'' SG Mehta had added.
SG Mehta said that the enemy needs only one success out of ten attempts, while security agencies must succeed every single time. He asserted that national security must be placed on the highest pedestal.
While citing Rule 12 of the Aircraft Security Rules, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated that the revocation of security clearance was based on national security concerns
However, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Turkey-based Çelebi, had said, "We are engaged in ground handling and certain other activities at various airports. On May 15, we received a letter stating that our security clearance had been revoked in the interest of national security, without any opportunity for a hearing and no reasoning."
Rohatgi had contended that the action was driven by public perception, as the company’s shareholding includes some Turkish nationals
"Public perception cannot be a ground to take away the employment of 1,400 people across India and various airports. This is not a rogue company, their entire business goes for a toss," Rohatgi added.
Rohatgi also argued the onus is on the government to show that the need was so grave that the clearance had to be revoked without even a hearing.
In response, Justice Sachin Datta stated, "The apprehension was so grave that service of notice would have been counterproductive; assuming there is an apprehension, founded or not so well-founded, you may end up doing something inimical to national security — the moment it is given to you, it might hasten you to do what is apprehended."
Brief Background
Turkey-based company, Çelebi Airport Services Private Limited, has challenged the government’s decision to revoke its security clearance, citing 'national security interests.
The Ministry of Civil Aviation, through its official Press Information Bureau (PIB) handle on X, announced: “In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Director General, BCAS, the security clearance granted to Çelebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. is hereby revoked with immediate effect, in the interest of national security.”
As per a Reuters report, Çelebi has asserted that the revocation of its security clearance was arbitrary and lacked specific justification. It has been argued that the order only gave vague references to 'national security' without any elaboration.
Noting that the order was passed without prior notice, the company has further alleged that the order of revocation would impact the employment of nearly 3,791.
While acknowledging that its shareholders are registered in Turkey, the company has said that the ultimate control lies with groups that are incorporated outside Turkey and do not have Turkish origin.
Case Title: CELEBI DELHI CARGO TERMINAL MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.