Centre Opposes Turkey Based Çelebi's Plea Against Revocation Of Security Clearance, Says Disclosing Reasons Will Prejudice National Security

The Union Government on Monday opposed before the Delhi High Court a plea filed by Turkey based company Celebi Airport Services Private Limited challenging the decision of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoking its security clearance in the "interest of national security".

Representing the Centre, SGI Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice Sachin Datta said that disclosure of reasons for revoking the security clearance may not only be counterproductive but will also seriously prejudice national interest and sovereignty and security of the country.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Celebi and took the Court through the impugned order.

He submitted that neither opportunity of being heard was given to the company nor any reason was mentioned for the revocation.

“It appears that it is because of public perception because the shareholding of this company is of turkish nationals,” he said.

On Court's query that security clearance is granted under what provision of law, Rohatgi referred tor Rule 12 of the Aircrafts Security Rules.

He further submitted that the onus is on the government to satisfy the Court that there was an apprehension and that the same was so grave that no notice was required to be served.

The Court orally remarked that serving of notice could be counter productive in such cases and that the company may do something which is inimical to country's national security the moment notice is served on it.

SGI Mehta submitted that the individuals employed by the company in question, who are deployed at airports have access to each corner of airport as well as the aircraft. “Government had inputs that it would be hazardous in this scenario, in which the country is in, to leave this activity in the hands of this company,” he said.

Mehta also handed over to the Court in a sealed cover the inputs received by the Central Government.

He said that if in a situation where the government feels that it is a clear case of even a potential threat, clause 9 will come into play and not Rule 12.

“There are situations which are contemplated rare, in which it is not possible to give reasons in the notice. Because disclosure of reasons itself maybe counterproductive but also seriously prejudice national interest and sovereignty and security of the country,” he said.

As the Court adjourned the hearing to Wednesday, Rohatgi said that the doctrine of proportionality would be applicable in the case.

To this, Mehta responded: “In a case of national security, there can't be a doctrine of proportionality.”

The Rule is better safe than sorry, Justice Datta orally remarked.

Mehta concluded: “Who controls and who give instructions, that matters...Enemy can try 10 times and succeed once. But country has to succeed each time.”

As per a report of Reuters, Celebi in its plea has argued that the decision would impact 3,791 jobs and investor confidence and that the same was issued without any warning to the company.

The Indian government revoked the security clearance of Celebi and its associated companies on grounds related to national security.

The plea states that mere rhetoric of national security without elaborating upon in what manner is an entity a threat to national security is unsustainable in law.

“The order "fails to disclose any specific or substantive reason except for a vague and general reference to 'national security'... (it) provides no reasons or justification," the plea read.

It further added In that while Celebi's shareholders were registered in Turkey, majority end control of the group is held by companies that do not have Turkish incorporation or origin.