Delhi HC junks Turkish firm’s plea against revocation of security clearance

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a set of petitions filed by Turkish-based aviation firm Celebi, which had challenged the withdrawal of its security clearance by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). The court said the action was justified due to “compelling national security considerations.”

Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the 94-page verdict, stated that the decision to revoke security clearance was rooted in the need to safeguard national interests, particularly in the context of potential external threats.

“There is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities, which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict,” the judgment noted.

The BCAS had revoked Celebi’s clearance on May 15, days after diplomatic tensions rose following Turkey’s public support for Pakistan and criticism of India’s military operations targeting terror infrastructure.

The companies under scrutiny — Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd — manage ground handling and cargo operations at several Indian airports. These operations grant extensive access to secure areas including aircraft, cargo facilities, and airside operations.

“The nature of ground handling services and cargo management places operators in direct access to passenger information systems, aircraft, and security zones. In such a scenario, foreign affiliations merit rigorous scrutiny,” the court observed.

The petitioners had argued that the decision violated principles of natural justice, alleging that no prior notice or opportunity to respond had been provided. Celebi’s legal team contended that the BCAS had failed to follow due procedure as laid out under the Aircraft Security Rules.

However, the High Court held that in matters involving national security, adherence to procedural formalities cannot override the state’s obligation to act decisively.

“While the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct, it is a compelling constitutional truth that the security of the realm is the pre-condition for enjoyment of all

other rights,” the judgment stated.

The court added that judicial review was not automatically barred in cases where national security is cited, referencing a Supreme Court precedent. However, it also reiterated that the judiciary should not substitute its judgment for that of the executive in assessing threats that involve geopolitical considerations.

“It is not for the court to second guess the evaluation of intelligence-based threats when the state has presented material — even if not disclosed in full — that justifies the decision,” the court said.

Government counsel argued that recent developments and intelligence inputs created an “unprecedented” threat landscape in the aviation sector. The Centre had previously told the court on May 19 that continued operation by Celebi would pose a security risk under the prevailing conditions.

Celebi, which has been operational in India for over 15 years and employs more than 10,000 people, provides services at nine Indian airports. The company maintained that the revocation was abrupt and without explanation.

Its legal representatives said that the Director General of BCAS should have issued a show-cause notice and granted a hearing before taking such a consequential step.

The High Court, however, ruled that when national security is involved, administrative procedures may be justifiably curtailed. It also upheld the Director General’s authority under the Aircraft Rules, 2023, to act on inputs from intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

“Any action taken by the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security for the purpose of revocation of any security clearance… cannot be considered inconsistent with the Aircraft Rules 2023,” the court held.

Ultimately, the judgment found the state’s actions consistent with constitutional and legal standards, marking a significant precedent on how national security concerns are weighed against procedural safeguards in regulatory matters.