‘Revoked Celebi’s security clearance sans warning given unprecedented threat’

New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday defended its decision to revoke the security clearance of Turkey-based Celebi without warning given the “unprecedented” threat to aviation security.

Appearing before Justice Sachin Datta, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said during “unprecedented” times, giving a hearing or reasons before taking action “defeats the purpose” and in matters of national security, “either we do something or we don’t” but there was “nothing in between”.

Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd have moved court against the Centre’s move.

Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) on May 15 revoked the security clearance, days after Turkey backed Pakistan and condemned  India’s strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country.

Mehta said the petitioners were involved in ground and cargo handling, having access to aircraft and screening of cargo in several airports which also handled VIP movements, prompting authorities to invoke their “plenary powers” under the relevant law to take action.

“The court is dealing with a sui generis situation where there is a potential threat to the country’s civil aviation security at various airports... When the country sometimes faces a situation where they are so unprecedented that neither an opportunity of hearing is possible because delay itself might defeat the object of the act nor

it is possible to give reasons for the action because that again defeats the purpose of the action, plenary powers come in,” Mehta said.

He added, “Plenary power is retained at the time of granting security clearance. Ground handling contract can be cancelled at any time.”

Event the agreement between the parties granted power to the authorities to revoke the security clearance and the same was accepted by the petitioners, Mehta said.

With respect to the petitioners’ objection to the Centre furnishing some “inputs” to court in a sealed cover, he said national security concerns outweighed the right to know.

The court, however, was assured by the Centre of “substantial compliance” with the principles of natural justice

in the matter, saying it had

considered a representation of the firms. He said the decision was not a “carte blanche” or “brahmastra” as it was subject to a judicial review of the court.