The BCAS had revoked the security clearance granted to the firm on May 15 “with immediate effect in the interest of national security”.

The decision had come against the Turkey-based company following backlash in India over Turkey’s support to Pakistan in the recent India-Pakistan conflict.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the company, told Justice Sachin Datta that the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023 make it mandatory and there is a statutory obligation as well to grant them an opportunity of hearing and “the maker of rule is not entitled to create an exception, otherwise rule would have said ‘it does not apply in emergent situation’.”

“I am saying it is a breach of principles of natural justice. There was no notice, no opportunity of hearing. There is violation of Rule 12 (of Aircraft Security Rules),” he said.

Rohatgi also protested to furnishing of reasons for revocation to the court in a sealed cover, submitting, “What they showed in a sealed envelope (to the court) has not been shared with us…I can only speculate and speculation is only one – that shareholding of my company is of Turkish origin. I protest this procedure of sealed cover by keeping the other person in the dark. The sealed cover procedure is frowned upon by the SC…I’ve been told to go home and I’m fighting with my hands tied to the back.”

“Opportunity of hearing is an elementary part of our jurisprudence…This is mandatory, not directory (in nature)…He (the government) has the power, they can give me a show-cause notice, they must record reasons…where is all this? (There is) no application of mind…It’s a guillotine imposed on a man (company) who has otherwise worked in this country for 17 years…I’m an Indian company, my employees are Indian…I have 10,000 employees on my head, they (government) have said they’ll be absorbed by other ground handlers..so you have only chucked out the company, now they will wear a competitor’s uniform…A direction cannot be inconsistent with the rules otherwise there will be chaos. Any action taken cannot be dehors the rules, and the rules require a hearing. I’m not questioning the power to withdraw,” Rohatgi argued.

The firm was incorporated in India in 2009 as Celebi Ground Handling Delhi Private Limited and had subsequently changed its name to Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited in 2018. The company was granted security clearance in 2022 and was valid for a period of five years.

The firm, in a communication to several authorities, including to Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 14, had stated that while its ultimate parent holding company — Celebi Aviation Holding — is incorporated in Turkey, over 65% of its ownership rests with international institutional investors, adding that in India, it is “very much a domestic operation”. It also stated that it has invested over $250 million in India and has been operating in India for the past 17 years.

Further emphasising that had the firm been given notice prior to revocation of its security clearance, it would’ve been an “open and shut case”, Rohatgi said, “I could’ve been given even half a day’s notice…I should know the accusations. If I know the accusations and if in terms of the rule there is elasticity, I could in a given case, provide a solution which would pacify (the authorities) and one solution I gave after the (security clearance revocation) order is, if the public perception is these are citizens from Turkey…I’m filing section 9 (petitions under Arbitration and Conciliation Act), because all my contracts are getting cancelled…Thats the constitutional effect im facing..I’m not saying give me a week’s notice.”

The court will hear the matter next on Thursday.