Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. (petitioners) being aggrieved by the actions undertaken by the respondents, culminating in the revocation of the petitioners’ security clearance, and a directive to transfer their employees to third parties, Sachin Datta, J., dismissed petition and held 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.
The petitioners, Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., both companies incorporated under Indian law and engaged in the business of ground handling and cargo handling services, respectively, at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA), New Delhi, along with several other major Indian airports. Their operations were pursuant to agreements with Delhi International Airport Ltd. (DIAL) and other airport operators. As mandated under the Aircraft Security Rules, both entities had previously obtained security clearances from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), which had most recently been renewed on 21-11-2022 for five years. Despite this, their clearances were revoked without disclosure of reasons or affording them any prior hearing.
Alongside the cancellation orders, the Regional Director of BCAS also issued directions transferring the petitioners’ employees to third-party service providers, namely Air India SATS, Bird Worldwide Flight Services, and GMR Airports Ltd., and allowing their entry only as employees of these entities until 19-05-2025. These decisions, taken unilaterally, were immediately contested by the petitioners, who had already submitted a representation through their holding company, Celebi Aviation Holding (Turkey) on 14-05-2025, seeking engagement. However, this representation was neither acknowledged nor acted upon before the adverse orders were issued. The petitions were thus filed alleging violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure under Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023.
In assessing the legality of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security’s (BCAS) decision to revoke the security clearances granted to the petitioners without prior notice or hearing, the Court began by acknowledging the critical nature of the petitioners’ services, which involved unrestricted access to highly sensitive areas of India’s airports. The petitioners’ operations in ground and cargo handling entailed direct interaction with aircraft, cargo, baggage, and passenger information systems, thus elevating the security imperative. The Court reaffirmed the legal necessity of obtaining security clearance under Rule 15 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011, and under the corresponding provision of the updated 2023 Rules.
The petitioners contended that the cancellation of their security clearances violated Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, and the principles of natural justice, as they were not granted an opportunity to be heard. While the Court recognized that natural justice is deeply rooted in constitutional fairness under Article 14 and plays a dual role both as a path to a fair outcome and as a means of legitimizing the process itself. The Court reiterated that these principles are not absolute. Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services, (2023) 13 SCC 401 and comparative jurisprudence from the United States and the United Kingdom, the Court affirmed that in matters implicating national security, natural justice can be excluded if compelling reasons are shown.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that it had, in accordance with precedent, directed the respondents to produce the intelligence inputs and relevant material forming the basis of the revocation. Upon perusal, the Court was satisfied that there were genuine and compelling national security considerations, including concerns over possible espionage and misuse of logistical capabilities in the event of external conflict. The material also raised geo-political considerations that were found to be beyond the scope of judicial re-evaluation. The Court expressly cited Madhyamam (supra) in affirming that the executive is best positioned to assess national security threats, and once such a threat is reasonably established, courts must not “second guess” the action unless it is wholly unfounded.
The Court applied the proportionality standard and found that, given the nature and immediacy of the threat, it was not feasible to require a pre-decisional hearing. This satisfied the twin tests set out in Madhyamam (supra):
(i) the existence of national security considerations, and
(ii) justification for excluding natural justice.
The Court upheld the State’s claim to maintain secrecy over the material, holding that disclosure would be detrimental to national security and international relations. The sealed cover approach, though controversial, was held to be the only viable means in this context, as even less restrictive methods like sharing documents with an amicus curiae were deemed impermissible.
Rejecting the petitioners’ argument that Rule 12 requires a hearing in all cases, the Court found that such an interpretation would defeat the very object of the statute especially Section 6 of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, which confers wide powers on the Director General of BCAS to issue directions in the interest of civil aviation and national security. The Court emphasized that this provision is mandatory and overrides procedural stipulations where national security is at stake. It also relied on India’s international obligations under the Chicago Convention, which requires member states to enforce access controls and conduct background checks.
Furthermore, the Court rejected comparisons drawn by the petitioners to other statutory frameworks such as the DDA Act, NDMC Act, and the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, clarifying that those statutes lacked express provisions on national security, unlike Section 6 of the 2024 aviation law. The petitioners’ argument that the Director General’s power was limited to generic directions and not to specific revocations was also found to be misconceived. The Court observed that the Director General’s authority extends to individualized, emergent action to protect civil aviation from threats, and that any action taken based on intelligence inputs cannot be held inconsistent with the Aircraft Rules, 2023.
Thus, the Court held that the revocation of the petitioners’ security clearance was not vitiated by non-compliance with Rule 12 or principles of natural justice, as compelling national security concerns justified both the action and the procedural departure. The petitions were found to be devoid of merit and were accordingly dismissed, along with all pending applications.
[Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4755, decided on 07-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
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. – 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 petitioners.
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.