Justice Sachin Datta had reserved the order on May 23 after hearing extensive arguments from Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd., Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., and the Union Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The case revolves around the aviation regulator BCAS‘s decision to cancel Celebi’s security clearance, which has had a cascading effect on the company’s operations across Indian airports, leading to the termination of its contracts with major airport operators, including DIAL, MIAL, and Adani.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Celebi, strongly contested the government’s move, terming it arbitrary and in violation of due process. He argued that Rule 12 of the Aircraft Rules, 2013, which governs such matters, is binding unless expressly overridden by Parliament.
Rohatgi contended that the government failed to follow basic procedural norms–no prior notice was issued, no hearing was conducted, and no reasons were recorded before revoking the clearance. “The revocation has destroyed our business. Our contracts were contingent on that clearance,” he told the court.
He emphasised that while the government has powers to issue directions, those powers do not extend to cancelling or revoking security clearances without adhering to statutory safeguards. Rohatgi also clarified that despite Turkish shareholding, Celebi’s workforce is entirely Indian and has no political affiliations.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the revocation, citing national security as paramount. Calling the matter “sui generis,” Mehta emphasised that the government has plenary powers in matters of national and airport security. He pointed out that Celebi handles sensitive data and has access to critical zones in airports, making rigorous security vetting essential.Mehta disclosed that intelligence inputs raised red flags about Celebi’s operations, especially in areas involving passenger and cargo handling. He said such information, being classified, could not be fully shared in court. “Certain decisions in the interest of national security cannot be disclosed without risking greater harm,” he argued.