23-05-2025
Court ought not to see info in sealed cover unless firm is given gist of allegations, Celebi tells Delhi HC
Ground handling service provider Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited told the Delhi High Court on Friday that the government 'is not endowed' with plenary powers as it claims and that 'it is not open for government' to say that it can be in breach of its own rules of granting an opportunity of hearing while revoking security clearance.
The firm also told the court that it ought not peruse materials provided to it in sealed cover until the firm is given a gist of the allegations it is faced with.
In the backdrop of public outrage over Turkey's support for Pakistan amid the recent India-Pakistan conflict, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) had revoked the security clearance granted to the Turkey-based firm on May 15 'with immediate effect in the interest of national security', following which Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order. The government has justified the revocation before the court on grounds of intelligence inputs it had received and the perceived threat, even as the firm has emphasised that it is an 'Indian company'.
Earlier, the government had told the court that given the national security threat, it was not mandatory for authorities to be in full compliance of principles of natural justice. It had also submitted that the rules pertaining to granting an opportunity of hearing before any such action are directory in nature, and not mandatory.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the firm, told Justice Sachin Datta while highlighting provisions of the Aircraft (Security) Rules 2023 as well as Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024 (which replaced the 1934 Aircraft Act) that 'it is not open for government to say that 'I can breach it'…It is a very carefully drafted rule, otherwise there would've been an exception…(It is) not a carte blanche, the government is not endowed with this power…to do it of his (their) own will. He (Government) has to follow the law and the law is objective… He (Government) has to record reasons in writing, not in your mind…Right to business cannot be curtailed in this flippant manner…Directions can be issued in compliance with the rules.'
While the government had earlier argued that 'there is substantial compliance of principles of natural justice' for the firm, Rohatgi argued that there is 'nothing to show compliance' of Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules 2023.
Emphasising that the firm ought to have been put on notice before the government's action, Rohatgi argued, 'Notice has to say the proposed punishment based on the gravamen of the facts… In a given case you can redact some information…something I should know, or should I argue from newspapers?… Give me a gist of the allegations.' Rohatgi further added that without the firm being in the know of the allegations, it faces the same prejudice before the court as it does before the government.
Upon a query from Justice Datta as to whether Rohatgi was suggesting that 'this court ought not to look at it (material in sealed cover)?' Rohatgi responded, 'Yes, (not before) I (am) given a gist of it…'
The court has now instructed the parties to file their written submissions by Monday.
