Delhi HC reserves verdict on Turkish firm Celebi's pleas against revocation of security clearance
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its verdict on petitions by Turkey-based Celebi against the revocation of its security clearance.
Justice Sachin Datta heard submissions by the lawyers appearing for petitioners - Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd, as well as the Centre.
The judge asked the parties to file their written submissions in the matter by Monday.
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.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing Celebi, had contended the Centre's move was against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure under the Aircraft Security Rules.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, defended the action, stating that there was an "unprecedented" threat to aviation security.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Lawyers don't need to wear black coats in summer: Delhi Bar Association
In a major relief to lawyers practising in the Capital amidst the scorching heat, the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) has decided that advocates will be exempt from wearing black coats, their usual dress code, from May 16 to September 30. Rules framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribe a dress code for all practising advocates. This comprises a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (a knee-length upper garment with long sleeves, side slits and a standing collar), black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown for men advocates. Women advocates have to wear a black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns or sarees and long skirts (white or black without any design). 'All the members are hereby informed that advocates are exempted from wearing a black coat during summer (from May 16 to September 30) as per amendment in rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act,1961,' DBA said in a circular dated May 24. 'Therefore, the members are at liberty to appear in the Courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court without wearing a black coat… The members are, however, advised to adhere to other rules of the dress code…,' the circular issued by Vikas Goyal, Secretary, DBA, said. DBA also said the district and sessions judges of various court complexes across Delhi have been informed of this decision. 'This is a very good step. The weather is very erratic and humid. In June, the heat will be way worse. This should be done by all Bar Associations and Councils across North India,' said Advocate Dhir Singh Kasana, former Saket Bar Association secretary. 'Indian district courts lack proper infrastructure in terms of fans, air conditioners, unhygienic washrooms, and sitting rooms, coupled with rising temperatures, it has become a daily physical and mental challenge for the advocates to wear black coats during court hours, especially in summer…This move is a welcome step towards the welfare of the advocates practising at district courts,' Advocate Paras Jain, who practices in Delhi, said. On February 27 this year, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a circular stating that advocates need not wear black coats from March 1 to June 30 every year. Similarly, Bhopal's Bar Council gave a similar exemption to lawyers from April 15 to July 15, 2025.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
After demolitions in Delhi's Madrasi Camp, Tamil Nadu offers support to families
The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday said that it will support families looking to return to their native districts after their homes in the Madrasi Camp in New Delhi's Jangpura area were demolished. The decades-old camp, built overlooking the Barapullah drain near Nizamuddin Railway Station, housed 370 tenements and was predominantly inhabited by families originally from Tamil Nadu. On Sunday, the Delhi Development Authority demolished the homes in the camp on the directions of the Delhi High Court, The Indian Express reported. The Delhi government was directed to relocate the families as the camp was allegedly blocking the Barapullah drain, which was leading to waterlogging. Hours after the demolition, the Tamil Nadu government stated that it was in 'active coordination' with the residents of the Madrasi Camp to ensure every possible support was extended to them without delay. It added that Chief Minister MK Stalin had directed the Tamil Nadu House in New Delhi, the guest house of the state government, to facilitate and oversee the coordination efforts. 'Comprehensive support, including assistance for livelihood and other essential needs, will be extended to them,' said the state government. 'This assistance will be facilitated through the offices of the concerned District Collectors to ensure timely and effective implementation.' Describing the Madrasi Camp as an 'unauthorised encroachment', the High Court on May 9 directed authorities to clear the area along the Barapullah drain. It said the camp was obstructing drainage and causing severe waterlogging in the surrounding areas during the monsoons. The court had also directed that eligible residents be rehabilitated and relocated under provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act and the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, The New Indian Express reported. Subsequently, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board determined that only 215 out of the 370 residents in the camp were eligible for housing. These families were allotted residential units in Narela, a northern suburb over 35 kms from the camp, The Indian Express reported. The remaining 155 families had reportedly failed to meet documentation or eligibility criteria. The settlement, which is more than six decades old, housed Tamil-speaking migrants who had arrived in the national capital seeking employment as domestic workers, cooks and daily-wage labourers.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US remittance tax to revive hawala, hand cartels a financial lifeline
Hidden on page 1,054 of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a threat to impose a 3.5 per cent tax on all remittance transfers made by non-citizens to accounts outside the country. This is a dangerous, backward-looking provision, and will make Americans less safe without raising much revenue. It is easy to understand why a measure like this would appeal to the current administration. It makes migrants' lives harder, and that's enough for it to be worth passing into law. And it certainly will create difficulties for millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the US, as well as for their families outside. Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has been a vocal opponent, saying — correctly — that this is unjustifiable double taxation. Her country, the largest destination for such transfers, has a lot to lose. But other countries are also worried. India is the third-largest destination for remittances from the US, receiving about $18 billion in 2024; the Philippines and China aren't far behind, at $14 billion each. According to Capital Economics, US-based remittances support 3 per cent of the Philippines' GDP. The impact on migration-dependent areas of the world will be severe. For some countries in Central America, national income might fall by almost 1 per cent if this proposal is implemented. Meanwhile, some estimates suggest that even a higher 5 per cent rate would only increase the US' takings by 0.1 per cent. For the remittance tax's backers, that's beside the point. Vice President JD Vance, when he was still a senator, introduced a similar bill. At that time, he said that 'this legislation is a common-sense solution to disincentivise illegal immigration and reduce the cartels' financial power.' That argument is exactly backward. What common sense actually tells you is that if less money is available in some of the poorest parts of Central America, it increases the incentives for people there to try and move to the US to join their family members already there. As for the impact on criminal networks — well, history suggests that they'll welcome this. The world has spent decades trying to make legal transfers cheap and efficient. An additional levy might increase the cost of transferring even small sums four fold. This would reverse all our efforts to force this trade above ground. If legal transfers are made too expensive, illegal and informal networks take their place. Some people have happily assumed that Bitcoin will fill the gap. But, more likely, there will be a renaissance in simpler, older mechanisms for international transfers. In South and West Asia, we call these methods 'hawala.' But other parts of the world derived equivalents independently. In China, for example, such mechanisms are called 'fei-ch'ien.' From a customer's point of view, they're simple to use. All you need to do is find a well-networked trader and give them the cash to be transferred. That person then calls somebody in their clan or village back home, who gives the same amount of cash to the chosen recipient. The two members of the hawala network settle accounts between each other once or twice a year, through smuggling or perhaps through false invoices and shell companies. Naturally, such informal mechanisms to transfer value can be used not just to evade the remittance excise, but taxes in general. Worse, they are frequently used as conduits for terrorism and drug financing — which is why governments have spent decades trying to stamp them out. This was hard because, if enough people use these systems, they can be more efficient and cheaper than formal finance. The exchange rates that hawala traders offer are often more attractive, and their fees take less of a bite out of small transactions than many banks do. In spite of the best efforts of regulators and cops, hawala networks only really shrank when other routes became more competitive. Informal currency traders need a large volume of transactions to be efficient and offer the best rates to their customers, so when their custom shrank, they became less attractive. It's this self-reinforcing loop that the remittance tax threatens to break. Suddenly, hawala networks — and their equivalents in South and Central America — will become appealing again. And when this method returns to its former prominence, it will become easier to pay those who smuggle opiates or people. And, of course, criminal syndicates of various types will once again step in to run these systems, and profit accordingly. The vice president is, not for the first time, wrong: His administration's remittance tax doesn't attack the cartels, it empowers them.
