Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta, in a judgment pronounced on July 7, 2025, dismissed two writ petitions challenging the revocation of security clearances for two entities providing ground handling and cargo handling services at various Indian airports. The court held that there was no merit in the petitions and consequently dismissed them, along with pending applications. The core of the court's decision centered on the interplay between principles of natural justice and considerations of national security, affirming that in matters concerning the security of the realm, the former must yield to the latter. The court also upheld the statutory power of the Director General, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, to take prompt and definitive action without a pre-decisional hearing when compelling national security interests are involved.

The present writ petitions were filed by Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited, challenging actions undertaken by the respondents, specifically the revocation of their security clearances and a directive to transfer their employees to third parties. Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (now 2013), provides professional ground handling services at several major Indian airports, including Indira Gandhi International Airport (Delhi), Cochin International Airport, Bengaluru International Airport, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (Hyderabad), and Goa International Airport, operating under ground handling agreements with respective airport operators. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited, also incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (now 2013), is engaged in cargo handling services at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, pursuant to a Concession Agreement with Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL).

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

Prior to entering these agreements, both petitioners underwent background checks by national security agencies, leading to the grant of security clearances by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS)/respondent no. 3, which were renewed on November 21, 2022, for five years.

W.P. (C) No. 6758 of 2025 specifically challenged an order dated May 15, 2025, issued by BCAS/respondent no. 3, revoking the security clearance for Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. under the "Ground Handling Agency" category. The order stated: "In the exercise of power conferred upon DG, BCAS, the security clearance in r/o Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd is hereby revoked with immediate effect in the interest of National Security."

Similarly, W.P. (C) No. 6759 of 2025 challenged an order dated May 15, 2025, from BCAS/respondent no. 3, revoking the security clearance for Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. under the "Regulated Agent" category, also citing "interest of National Security."

The petitioners contended that these decisions were taken unilaterally, without furnishing any reasons, and without affording them an opportunity of being heard. They also challenged a communication dated May 15, 2025, issued by the Regional Director, BCAS/respondent no. 5, which directed that Airport Entry Passes (AEPs) and Temporary Airport Entry Passes (TAEPs) issued to Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. employees would be allowed for entry as employees of M/s Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services Pvt Ltd., and those for Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. employees would be allowed as employees of M/s GMR Airports Limited, citing operational requirements, with validity till May 19, 2025.

The petitioners asserted that they responded to these impugned orders and communication on the same day. Additionally, their holding company, Celebi Aviation Holding, had made a detailed representation to BCAS/respondent no. 3 on May 14, 2025, expressing concern over "inaccurate and misleading narratives online and in parts of the media" linking the company to geopolitical situations and perceived Turkish origin. The representation clarified that Celebi Aviation and its entities are "purely commercial in nature" with no political affiliations, and that over 65% of its ownership rests with international institutional investors. It also stated Celebi's significant investments in India (over USD 250 million) and employment of approximately 10,000 Indian citizens, along with compliance with data security measures. Despite this representation, no opportunity for hearing was granted, nor was the representation responded to, before the impugned actions were taken.

The petitioners argued that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was given, no opportunity of hearing was granted, and no reasons were disclosed. They specifically invoked Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, which mandates an opportunity of being heard and reasons to be recorded in writing before suspending or cancelling a security clearance. They asserted that any order passed in violation of natural justice is void.

The respondents, through the Learned Solicitor General, submitted that they possess wide-ranging plenary powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, to act decisively in matters of national security and civil aviation security. They contended that these powers are not contingent upon preconditions like those in Rule 12 of the 2023 Rules, which cannot limit powers conferred under parent legislation. The respondents stated the sensitive nature of ground handling services, which provide "unrestricted access to critical areas of civil aviation," necessitating swift executive action for emergent situations. They also cited India’s international obligations under Annexure 17 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. It was argued that principles of natural justice are not absolute and must yield to national security considerations, citing Supreme Court judgments like Ex-Armymen's Protection Services (P) Ltd. and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. The respondents also stated Clause 9 of the petitioners' security clearance renewal order dated November 21, 2022, which expressly reserved the right to revoke security clearance "at any time without assigning any reasons thereof, in the interest of national/ civil aviation security."

The court observed that there could be "no cavil with the proposition that the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct and flow from the principle of reasonableness" and are "the cornerstone of our Constitutional Framework." However, the court stated that "their application is contextual and cannot be put in a straitjacket." The court referred to Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, where it was observed that "the concept of reasonableness must be projected in the procedure contemplated by Article 21, having regard to the impact of Article 14 on Article 21." It was further observed that "the principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be 'right and just and fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied." The court noted from Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. that "procedural fairness was no longer viewed merely as a means to secure a just outcome but a requirement that holds an inherent value in itself."

Regarding the interplay between natural justice and national security, the court stated that "in matters pertaining to the security of the realm, the principles of natural justice must yield to preservation of natural security." This position, the court noted, "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 cited Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, where it was held that "in a situation of national security, a party cannot insist for the strict observance of the principles of natural justice." The court further quoted from the same judgment: "It is the duty of the court to read into and provide for statutory exclusion, if not expressly provided in the rules governing the field." The court also referenced Sublime Software Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that "in matters of national security, principles of natural justice can be given a go-by."

The court acknowledged that the expression "national security" does not have a fixed meaning, stating from Madhyamam: "Thus, the expression national security does not have a fixed meaning. While courts have attempted to conceptually distinguish national security from public order, it is impossible (and perhaps unwise) to lay down a text-book definition of the expression which can help the courts decide if the factual situation is covered within the meaning of the phrase. The phrase derives its meaning from the context."

The court addressed the justiciability of national security considerations, stating that in Ex Armyman’s, the Supreme Court "categorically held that in order for the Court to satisfy itself that the concerned action has been taken on account of national security considerations, it is open to the Court to call for the relevant files so as to ascertain whether the interest of national security is indeed involved." However, the court added, "once national security considerations are found to be the reasons for the concerned action, the issue as to whether something is or is not in the interest of national security is not a matter for judicial review." The court further stated, citing R. Begum vs. SIAC, that "only the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters."

The court noted that in Madhyamam, the Supreme Court "recognized in unmistakable terms that the principles of natural justice may be excluded when national security concerns outweigh the duty of fairness." It was also recorded that for assessing national security claims, the court applies the "reasonable prudent person standard," which is "one of the lowest standards to test the reasonableness of an action." The court observed that "the State is best placed to decide if the interest of national security would be served" and that "the court allows due deference to the State to form its opinion but reviews the opinion on limited grounds of whether there is nexus between the material and the conclusion." The court stated 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."

The court recorded that during the proceedings on May 22, 2025, it directed the respondents to produce the relevant inputs/information on the basis of which the security clearance of the petitioners was sought to be revoked, without complying with the principles of natural justice. This action was stated to be "in consonance with the observations of the Supreme Court in Ex. Armyman’s (supra), in which it was held that it is incumbent upon the Court to call for the relevant records and scrutinize the same to satisfy itself that issues of national security are involved."

Upon perusal of the relevant inputs/information, the court stated that "it indeed transpires that there are compelling national security considerations involved, which impelled the respondents to take impugned action." The court further observed that "while it would not be inappropriate 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."

The court also stated that "there are impelling geo-political considerations, impinging upon the safety of the country, which are also involved." It was affirmed that "as per settled law (as noticed hereinabove), once national security considerations are found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled/revoked, it is not for the Court to 'second guess' the same." The court found that "in the given factual conspectus, even applying the principle of 'proportionality' and/or the least restrictive mean/s, there was really no occasion to make the impugned action contingent upon adherence to the principles of natural justice, or any procedural exercise which would detract from the necessity to take swift action."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Three Year GPRA Retention Cap For CAPF | Rule 43 Not Arbitrary | Courts Must Maintain Balance Between Competing Rights And Interests

The court held that "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." It was also stated that the court had "no difficulty in appreciating the necessity of maintaining secrecy in respect of document/s on the basis of which the security clearance of the petitioners has been revoked inasmuch as the disclosure of the same would not be conducive to security and safety considerations and international relations."

The court concluded that "the twin tests set out in Para 74 and 75 of the Madhyamam (supra), are satisfied viz. (i) the State has satisfied that the national security considerations are involved (ii) the State has satisfied that the abrogation of principles of natural justice is justified." Regarding the acceptance of the report in a sealed cover, the court found that "resorting to any other less restrictive means was not possible in the facts and circumstances of the present case." The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the denial of natural justice, by itself, vitiated the impugned action.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges against the revocation of security clearances.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the 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.

For the 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, Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Ratik Sharma, Mr. Parth Sindhwani, Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Gohil and Mr. Puneet, Advocates

Case Title: CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5297

Case Number: W.P.(C) 6758/2025 & W.P.(C) 6759/2025

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta