HC Dismisses Celebi’s Plea Against Security Clearance Revocation
Court Upholds Centre's Decision Citing "Compelling National Security Considerations" Amidst Turkey's Stance on India-Pakistan Tensions.
- The Delhi High Court dismissed Celebi Ground Handling India’s plea against the revocation of its security clearance.
- Justice Tejas Karia noted that similar pleas by other Celebi firms were dismissed earlier.
- The Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) revoked the security clearance on May 15.
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 31st July: The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by Turkish-based company Celebi Ground Handling India Private Limited, challenging the Centre’s decision to revoke its security clearance. Justice Tejas Karia, in his ruling, simply stated “Dismissed,” noting that similar petitions by associated firms had been rejected earlier.
This latest dismissal follows a ruling by a different bench of the high court on July 7, which had similarly rejected pleas by two other Turkish-based Celebi firms – Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd. Those earlier pleas also challenged the revocation of their security clearance by the aviation watchdog, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS), on May 15. The court on July 7 had underscored that there were “compelling national security considerations” involved in the matter.
The BCAS had revoked Celebi’s security clearance shortly after May 15, following Turkey’s public support for Pakistan and condemnation of India’s strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country. The Delhi High Court, in its previous rulings, emphasized that while principles of natural justice are sacrosanct, they must yield to legitimate national security considerations, especially concerning critical infrastructure like ground handling services at airports, which offer deep access to vital operations and security zones.
The court reiterated that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are best positioned to assess national security demands, and once such considerations are in play, the court would not second-guess the rationale behind the actions taken.
Comments are closed.