Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Natural Justice Principles May Be Excluded For National Security Concerns: Delhi High Court Upholds Revoking Of Turkish Based Celebi’s Clearance
|The Delhi High Court dismissed Writ Petitions preferred by Celebi being aggrieved by the actions undertaken by the Central Government, culminating in the revocation of its security clearance, and a directive to transfer its employees to third parties.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of the security clearance of Turkish based company- Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited.
Two Writ Petitions were preferred by Celebi being aggrieved by the actions undertaken by the Central Government, culminating in the revocation of its security clearance, and a directive to transfer its employees to third parties.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “It is, therefore, evident that in Madhyamam (supra), the Supreme Court has recognized in unmistakable terms that the principles of natural justice may be excluded when national security concerns outweigh the duty of fairness. … Importantly, in Madhyamam (supra), the Supreme Court also recognized that for the purpose of assessing whether national security considerations are involved, the Court applies the “reasonable prudent person standard”, which is one of the lowest standards to test reasonableness of the action.”
The Bench reiterated that it is the executive wing and not the judicial wing that has the knowledge of India's geo-political relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India's national security.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sandeep Sethi, and Darpan Wadhwa represented the Petitioners while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma, and CGSC Amit Tiwari represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A Petition was filed by Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and now governed by the Companies Act, 2013. It was engaged in providing professional ground handling services at Indira Gandhi International Airport (Delhi), Cochin International Airport, Bengaluru International Airport, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (Hyderabad), and Goa International Airport. It operated pursuant to ground handling agreements entered into with the respective airport operators. Another Petition was filed by Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited, a company also incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and governed by the Companies Act, 2013.
It was engaged in the business of providing cargo handling services at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, pursuant to a Concession Agreement entered between the Petitioner and Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL). Prior to entering into the said ground handling agreements and the concession agreement, the respective Petitioners underwent background checks by national security agencies. Based on these verifications, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) granted the Petitioners security clearances, which were renewed recently for a period of five years. The Petitioners challenged the Order of BCAS whereby the security clearance provided in “r/o Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd, under the category Ground Handling Agency” and “r/o Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd under the category Regulated Agent”, were revoked.
It was claimed that the said decisions were taken unilaterally without furnishing any reasons, and more importantly, without affording the Petitioners any opportunity of being heard. They also challenged a communication issued by the Regional Director, BCAS, which provided that all Airport Entry Passes (AEPs) and Temporary Airport Entry Pass (TAEPs) issued in favour of Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. shall be allowed for entry into the Airport as employees of M/s Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd and M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services Pvt Ltd. and all AEPs and TAEPs issued in favour of the Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd shall be allowed for entry into the Airport as employees of M/s GMR Airports Limited due to operational requirements. Hence, these were under challenge before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, emphasised, “It is apparent from the dicta laid down in the aforesaid cases and also in Madhyamam (supra) (which has been discussed separately hereinbelow), that in matters pertaining to the security of the realm, the principles of natural justice must yield to preservation of natural security. This position has been affirmed and recognised not only by the Courts in India, but also in other jurisdictions such as the UK and USA.”
The Court said that once national security considerations are found to be in play, then, the Court would not second guess the rationale/sufficiency of the action taken.
“The Supreme Court expressly recognised that the State is best placed to decide how the interest of national security would be served. The Court would not “second guess” the assessment of the State “that the purpose identified would violate India’s national security”. It was held that due deference would be given to the State to form its opinion; the same is subject to review on the limited ground of whether there is nexus between the material and the opinion/conclusion”, it further noted.
The Court reiterated that judicial review would not be excluded on a mere mention of the phrase “national security” and the State cannot be allowed to use national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under law.
“On perusal of the relevant inputs/information, it indeed transpires that there are compelling national security considerations involved, which impelled the respondents to take impugned action. While it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that 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”, it also remarked.
Moreover, the Court observed that there is considerable body of judicial dicta to the effect that the State is well within its rights to take pre-emptive measures to protect and preserved national security.
“The action taken is consistent with the judicially evolved principles, recognized across jurisdictions, which give primacy to legitimate national security considerations, even when weighed against the procedural due process. … In Ex Armyman’s (supra), it has been expressly observed that in a situation involving national security, a party cannot insist for a strict observation of principles of natural justice and that in such cases, it is the duty of this Court to read into and provide for statutory exclusion if not expressly provided for in the rules governing the field”, it added.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that any action taken by the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation for the purpose of revocation of any security clearance on the basis of inputs received from the law enforcement/intelligence agency cannot be considered to be an act inconsistent with the Aircrafts Rules 2023, contrary to what has been contended on behalf of the Petitioners.
“Accordingly, the petitioners‟ reliance on statutory provisions in the DDA Act is misplaced and has no bearing on the present case. Moreover, the statutory frameworks under the DDA Act, NDMC Act, and U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act were enacted to govern administrative and urban planning functions. These statutes do not contain provisions that specifically address national security. In contrast, Section 6 specifically refers to and empower the Director General of Civil Aviation Security to issue orders/directions to ensure the safe operation of the aerodrome and safeguarding civil aviation operations in the interest of national security”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the alleged infraction of Rule 12 of Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, cannot impinge upon the validity of the impugned action.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions and upheld the impugned actions.
Cause Title- Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5340)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sandeep Sethi, and Darpan Wadhwa, Advocates Ritu Bhalla, Sarul Jain, Sidhartha Das, Gajanand Kirodiwal, Aditya Rathee, Amer Vaid, and Rea Bhail.
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Amit Tiwari, Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Amit Gupta, Bhuvan Kapoor, Aman, R. Prabhat, Saurabh Tripathi, Vinay Yadav, Shubham Sharma, Ayush Tanwar, Urja Pandey, Ayushi Srivastava, Anjana Gosain, Keshav Raheja, Shreya Manjari, Sonal Kumar Singh, Ratik Sharma, Parth Sindhwani, Yashvardhan Singh Gohil, and Puneet.