Couldn't give Çelebi notice in unprecedented situation: Centre on security clearance revocation

The Union government on Thursday argued that it could not have given notice of security clearance revocation or an opportunity of hearing to Turkish ground handling and cargo operator Çelebi Airport Services India owing to national security concerns in the wake of the conflict between India and Pakistan..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told Justice Sachin Datta,"When it is question of security, either we take action or we do not take action. It is about pure subjective action while protecting the nation.".Mehta submitted that plenary power of superintendence can be exercised in cases of national security. In particular, he referred to Section 5 of Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, which grants the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security the power to carry out regulatory and oversight functions in respect of matters relating to civil aviation security."There is potential threat, it is a peculiar case," Mehta said, while referring to the alleged threats at airports. .Mehta also highlighted the various functions of operators like Çelebi. "There are airlines that cannot afford to have their own staff so they enter into a contractual tie up with these kinds of services," he said.Mehta added that these companies have access to crucial airport and passenger data."There is computer data which also includes VIP details, which aircraft is landing etc. They have full access to all these details. About luggage in flights."On Çelebi's argument that no opportunity of hearing was given before revocation of security clearance, Mehta said sometimes that may defeat the object of the move. "Country is faced with unprecedented situations. Giving opportunity is not possible. It might defeat the object. Giving reasons of action would also defeat purpose of action.".The SG then referred to judgments in which it was held that freedom of speech and right to know may be excluded when there are national security concerns. The Court replied,"A company would not have Article 19, right? But then how is this exposition coming in when a company does not have right. Article 19 does not even come into the picture. They are only arguing that some notice should have been given..."The matter will be heard next on Friday afternoon..Çelebi moved the High Court challenging the Indian government’s decision to revoke its security clearance. The decision was taken following the four-day Indo-Pak military conflict during which the Turkish government openly backed Pakistan.Çelebi, a wholly-owned Indian subsidiary of Turkish parent company Çelebi Aviation Holding, argued that the government's order lacked any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The company described the justification as “vague” and “unsubstantiated,” asserting that such actions jeopardise foreign investor confidence and threaten the livelihoods of over 3,800 Indian employees.The company also clarified that while it has Turkish ownership, operational and managerial control of its Indian entity is handled by an India-based team,and that it has maintained a clean track record for over a decade at major airports.Following the revocation, Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) terminated its contracts with Çelebi. In Mumbai, domestic operator Indothai has been brought in to take over the firm’s ground handling services..In yesterday's hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Çelebi had objected to the Central government’s offer to provide the reasons only to the Court in a sealed cover. This is in contravention to Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, he argued. Justice Datta had asked Rohatgi whether he is entitled to the material as a matter of law. “Is the Court obliged to supply to you?” the judge queried. Rohatgi replied that he was not asking for a copy of the reasons, but a reasonable opportunity to make his case and a notice of hearing. .During the previous hearing on May 19, the Central government had opposed the plea, arguing that it would be hazardous to engage the services of the company. “There are two categories of contracts—airport handling and cargo handling. These are extremely sensitive operations where personnel know every nook and cranny of the airport,” Mehta had said. He added that the revocation was rooted in concerns over national security under the Aircraft Security Rules, particularly Rule 12, which permits cancellation of licence where there is a potential threat..Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Darpan Wadhwa with Advocate Ritu Bhalla (Partner) at Luthra & Luthra appeared for Celebi.Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma also represented the Union.