The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Çelebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Çelebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd, challenging the revocation of their security clearances by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).
The Turkish-origin companies had also assailed a BCAS directive mandating the transfer of their personnel to other service providers. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders dated 15 May 2025 were issued without prior notice or hearing, in violation of Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, which requires a hearing before suspension or cancellation of security clearance.
The petitioners further alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice and asserted that even in cases involving national security, a minimum threshold of procedural fairness must be maintained. They relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 INSC 324 to argue that their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 had been infringed.
The Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, justified the revocation citing national security concerns, contending that in such cases, the usual procedural safeguards could be excluded. The government also maintained that Rule 12 is directory, not mandatory, and Çelebi, being a foreign-owned entity, could not invoke protections under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The Court while rejecting the contention of the Petitioners of denial of principles of natural justice finds that resorting to any other less restrictive means was not possible in the facts and circumstances of the present case as far as accepting the report of the concerned agency in a sealed cover is concerned.
The Court upheld the government’s position, holding that national security is a legitimate ground to restrict procedural fairness, particularly where the authorities are acting within their statutory mandate. It ruled that the DG-BCAS had the legal authority under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 to act in public interest and that Rule 12 could not be interpreted to fetter that discretion in security-sensitive matters.
The Court further observed that the sealed cover procedure used by the authorities was justified in the present context, given the sensitivity of the material involved. It distinguished the Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. ruling by emphasizing that in cases involving national security, courts must defer to executive assessment unless mala fides or procedural impropriety is evident.
Lastly, the Court found no infirmity in Clause 9 of the earlier clearance letter, which permitted revocation without assigning reasons. It held that such contractual stipulations were valid when read harmoniously with the statutory framework governing aviation security.
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.
Appearances in the case:
Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Ritu Bhalla, Mr. Sarul Jain, Mr. Sidhartha Das, Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal, Mr. Aditya Rathee, Mr. Amer Vaid and Ms. Rea Bhail, Advocates
Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG along with Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Mr. Aman, Mr. R. Prabhat, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Ms. Urja Pandey and Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Advocates for Union of India.
Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Keshav Raheja, Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advocates for R-1, 2, 3 and 5.
Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Ratik Sharma, Mr. Parth Sindhwani, Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Gohil and Mr. Puneet, Advocates for R-4
Read Judgment
