In a ruling that tethered national security firmly above procedural rights, the Delhi High Court has upheld the government’s abrupt cancellation of security clearances granted to Turkish-linked ground handling giant Çelebi—without so much as a notice.
The courtroom found itself confronting a crossroads: the inviolability of natural justice on one side, the looming specter of national threat on the other. Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the verdict, made no bones about which path the law would travel.
“Security of the realm,” the Court noted, “is the pre-condition for enjoyment of all other rights.” That sentence, heavy with constitutional pragmatism, sealed Çelebi’s fate for now.
The judgment stemmed from a petition filed by two Indian subsidiaries of Çelebi Aviation Holding, a Turkish-owned outfit operating across major Indian airports. Their grievance? That the Ministry of Civil Aviation had pulled their security clearance on May 15 without notice, citing national security—but offering little more in public.
The timing wasn’t coincidental. The decision came on the heels of a four-day Indo-Pak conflict, during which Turkey’s pro-Pakistan posturing did not go unnoticed in New Delhi.
In response to the clearance revocation, Delhi International Airport Limited wasted no time in terminating its contracts with the company. Çelebi challenged this domino of disruption, claiming its Indian arm was operationally autonomous, run entirely by a domestic team, and staffed by over 3,800 Indian employees. It also contended the government’s reasoning was vague, unsubstantiated, and damaging to investor trust.
But the High Court had other priorities.
Relying on precedent from Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that in the shadow of national security concerns, procedural fairness is not a guaranteed guest at the table. “Once national security considerations are found to be the reasons for the action, it is not a matter for judicial review,” the Court held with unmistakable clarity.
The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had cited its statutory firepower—Section 6 of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and Section 5A(1A) of the Aircraft Act, 1934—to justify the bypassing of procedural hearings. Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, which requires a prior hearing, was deemed non-binding in situations involving classified threats.
The Court was shown sealed intelligence inputs. What those files said, only the judge knows—but they were compelling enough to confirm concerns of potential espionage and the risk of dual-use logistics, especially during geopolitical tension.
The ruling underscored the degree of trust and access ground-handling firms enjoy: aircraft, cargo, airside zones, passenger systems—all within reach. Turkish ownership, in the Court’s view, became more than a footnote; it was a variable in the risk matrix.
Referencing international aviation protocols under Annexure 17 of the Chicago Convention, the Court backed the state’s obligation to control access and safeguard against any breaches.
In the end, both petitions by Çelebi were grounded. The High Court concluded that urgent and confidential state action was not only legally justified—it was necessary.
While Çelebi continues its battle in the Bombay High Court over the post-termination reshuffle, the Delhi judgment makes one thing clear: in India’s high-security airspace, even a whisper of doubt can trigger a storm.
