The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the plea challenging the Central government’s decision to revoke the security clearance to Turkish ground handling and cargo operator Çelebi Airport Services India which led to the termination of its services by Delhi and Mumbai airports.
The government’s decision followed the recent four-day Indo-Pak military conflict during which the Turkish government openly backed Pakistan.
This prompted the firm to approach the High Court citing violation of natural justice and other grounds.
Justice Sachin Datta reserved his verdict today after hearing rejoinder submissions by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Çelebi.
Rohatgi contended today that Çelebi has been condemned without any proper disclosure on why it was being subjected to such harsh measures, in violation of procedural safeguards including in Rule 12 of Aircraft Rules, 2023.
He argued that the firm should have been given proper notice before being subjected to such measures.
“The notice has to say what is the proposed punishment based on the gravamen of facts. It is not a Carte Blanche. Record reasons in writing, not in your mind,” he said.
He added that Çelebi’s rights to conduct a business in India cannot be taken away casually.
“You are dealing with a party that has worked for 17 years. I have a constitutional right. It cannot be taken away in this flippant manner. All the ten thousand people I employ each has security clearance. Why have you damned me, is it asking for too much? We are struggling,” Rohatgi added.
Such ‘complete violation of natural justice principles’ renders the revocation of the firm’s security clearance void, Rohatgi said. He added that the government should at least share a gist of its accusations with the company, not just the Court.
“So, the court cannot look at material in sealed cover unless some gist is given to you?” asked Justice Datta.
In his reply, Rohatgi pointed out that even the Supreme Court has criticised the practice of relying on information in sealed covers.
Rohatgi added that revocation of security clearance took the firm by surprise and has had harsh consequences.
“The impact of this decision is that all my contracts – 9 of them across the nation – are being cancelled one by one. They are saying, ‘sorry sir, Delhi is the boss.’ … If this clearance is gone, then all (my contracts) are in the process of going. This is the harshness of this decision. It came like a bolt from the blue. I am arguing from what I read in the newspapers,” he said.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the Indian government.
The Ministry of Civil Aviation, acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), had withdrawn Çelebi’s security clearance on May 15, 2025, invoking national security grounds.
Çelebi, a wholly-owned Indian subsidiary of Turkish parent company Çelebi Aviation Holding, challenged the move before the High Court shortly after.
The company termed the Indian government’s justification for its decision 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 May 15 revocation, the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) had terminated its contracts with Çelebi. In Mumbai, domestic operator Indothai has been brought in to take over the firm’s ground handling services. Çelebi has filed a plea challenging such measures before the Bombay High Court as well.
Yesterday, Solicitor General Mehta told the Delhi High Court that it could not have given notice of the security clearance revocation to Çelebi, owing to national security concerns in the wake of the conflict between India and Pakistan.
“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,” he said.
During an earlier hearing on May 19, the Central government had also said that it would be hazardous to engage the services of the company.
