Delhi HC nixes Celebi's plea against Centre's curbs
NEW DELHI: There are "compelling national security considerations" that led the Centre to revoke security clearances of a Turkish-owned entity for handling airport-related operations, Delhi high court said on Monday, upholding the move.
It dismissed Celebi Airport Services Private Ltd's plea challenging the aviation watchdog BCAS's decision to revoke its security clearance, noting that "once national security considerations are found to exist, it was not for the court to 'second guess' the same".
Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) on May 15 revoked the security clearance, days after Turkey backed Pakistan and condemned India's strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country.
Justice Sachin Datta also pointed out that "ground handling services at airports offer deep access to airside operations, aircraft, cargo, passenger information systems, and security zones. Such unbridled access to vital installations and infrastructure naturally elevates the need for strict security vetting for operators and their foreign affiliations.
This is particularly true in the wake of contemporary challenges faced by the country in the security domain, and the escalations/incidents witnessed in the recent past, with geopolitical factors at play".
While the firm argued it was not even heard and the move was arbitrary, the HC found "compelling national security considerations involved" after the govt furnished material in a sealed cover for the court.
"While it would not be appropriate for this court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict," the HC noted.
Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd oversee ground handling and cargo terminal functions at various airports in the country. HC rejected the contention of the petitioners on the denial of principles of natural justice. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the pre-condition for enjoyment of all other rights,' the court said in its 94-page verdict.
It said the authorities are justified in taking prompt and definitive action to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised. The HC said it was also 'acutely conscious' that the state must not be allowed to invoke national security as a ruse to deny procedural due process.
'Any action taken by the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation for the purpose of revocation of any security clearance on the basis of inputs received from the law enforcement/intelligence agency cannot be considered to be an act inconsistent with the Aircraft Rules 2023, contrary to what has been contended on behalf of the petitioners,' it said. Celebi said the Centre's move was against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure under the Aircraft Security Rules.
Celebi, operating in the Indian aviation sector for over 15 years and employing over 10,000 people, offers its services at nine airports.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas against Uttar Pradesh govt's school merger order
In a major relief to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Monday dismissed both the writ petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for the merger of government-run primary schools and upper primary schools. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court began hearing the case on July 3. (FILE PHOTO) The court asserted that pairing (merger) of schools does not violate Article 21A of the Constitution. Article 21A guarantees the right to education as a fundamental right for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. A single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on Monday, observing: 'The mandate of Article 21A of Constitution cannot be presumed to be decided to hold that the free and compulsory education to the children in between the age of six and fourteen years have to be provided by the State within a distance of 1 km, as is being argued.' The court added that just because the distance of the educational institutions after the merger would result in the school being established at a distance of more than one kilometre from a population of 300, the argument of the petitioners that it would be a violation of rights conferred under Article 21A of the Constitution, cannot be justified. Elaborating on the issue, the court pointed out that the duty to establish a school within one km has to be interpreted in a manner that it does not become absolutely unworkable and in the present case, the distances range from one km to approximately 2- 2.5 km. The court observed that the rules are applicable throughout the state from rural areas to semi-urban areas and to urban areas where there are limitations of the availability of land and other resources. 'The approximate population of the state is 24 crore and if the arguments of the petitioner are to be accepted that for every 300 inhabitants one school should be available at a distance of 1 km, the state will have to provide for about 8 lakh schools,' the court said. The high court added that literal interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, would render the entire rule to be an absurdity. Rule 4(1)(a) of RTE Act, 2009, pertains to the admission of children into age-appropriate classes. Specifically, it addresses situations where a child over six years old has not been admitted to school or has dropped out. This rule ensures such children are admitted to a class that matches their age, enabling them to continue their elementary education. The rule is to be interpreted adopting the principles of interpretation so as to make it workable and not a dead letter, the court said. 'A purposive interpretation of the rule is required which mandates that the same must be construed in a manner that advances the object and purpose for which it was enacted,' the court observed. The court also pointed out that it is the duty of the state government to establish schools at a distance which is closest to the habitation and in case it is not possible then the government must provide transportation facilities. Interpretation of a rule should be done keeping in consideration the fact that Uttar Pradesh is a large state, availability of land and other resources, including financial, pointed out by the court. The court added that the government is bound to establish a school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and, in absence, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities. The court pointed out that the neighbourhood schools would also include other than government schools. 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State,' the court said. 'It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law,' the court said. The case Fifty-one students from Sitapur – 50 from a primary school and one from the upper primary section – approached the high court challenging the June 16 order of the state government for the merger of primary schools across Uttar Pradesh. They moved the court through their guardian. A separate petition was filed by another primary student through his mother. The court clubbed both the petitions and delivered the common judgment. The petitioners opposed the merger of schools, stating that it will cause difficulties for children who will have to travel farther to reach their new schools, affecting their right to free and compulsory education. Additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel (CSC) Shailendra Kumar Singh presented the state government's views in court. Senior advocate LP Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
New Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Agriculture Minister Atchannaidu seeks GST cut on mango pulp from 12% to 5%
VIJAYAWADA: Agriculture Minister K Atchannaidu on Monday urged Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan to reduce the GST on mango pulp from 12% to 5%, while seeking enhanced central support for the State's agriculture sector. Speaking after the meeting in New Delhi, Atchannaidu alleged that farmers suffered under the YSRCP regime due to poor policy decisions and a failure to utilise Central schemes. 'The sector was paralysed under Jagan Mohan Reddy's rule,' he said, accusing the previous government of completely ignoring farmers' needs. The Agriculture minister said that 64% of the State's population depends on agriculture, and the current government is prioritising their welfare. He added that 3.5 lakh metric tonnes of mangoes have been procured from Chittoor farmers this season. The State government fixed the price for Totapuri mangoes at Rs 12 per kg, with Rs 8 paid by processors and Rs 4 subsidised by the State government. Proposals have also been sent to the Centre to release Rs 130 crore under the Market Intervention Scheme. On veterinary education, Minister Atchannaidu welcomed the Union government's approval to restore third and fourth-year and A.H. courses at the College of Veterinary Science in Garividi of Vizianagaram district. Commenting on former chiefr minister's proposed visit to Bangarupalem, Atchannaidu said that permission would be granted, however any disturbance to law and order would not be tolerated. The minister also assured farmers that there is no shortage of fertilisers and that adequate supplies are being ensured across the State.
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC seeks government's reply on AAP's plea over rent for party office
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Centre's response on a plea filed by AAP against the rent demand for its party office in Vithalbhai Patel House in the capital. Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to the Centre on AAP's plea filed in a case in which the party challenges the cancellation of the allotment of the suite for its office. The high court asked the authorities to file its reply within two weeks and posted the matter on July 22. After AAP's counsel urged the court to stay the June 20 reminder notice demanding the rent, the Centre's lawyer said 'nothing' would happen till the next hearing. The Centre's counsel said there was no urgency in the matter as it was only a notice and they would be proceeding in line with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. AAP has claimed the decision of the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, was ex parte and passed without any showcause notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Its counsel argued the Directorate of Estates allegedly cancelled the allotment of a double suite in Vithalbhai Patel House with effect from September 14, 2024, without any information and belatedly conveyed the same to the petitioner for the first time in a letter dated January 17. The petitioner handed over the possession of the premises on April 30, the counsel added. In a fresh plea, AAP said the Directorate of Estates on June 20 re-issued the bills in the form of a reminder through which the authorities have re-affirmed the arbitrary eviction of the petitioner from its state party office via the ex-parte cancellation order of September 14, 2024.
