Çelebi Plea Dismissed: Delhi High Court Prioritizes National Security Over Judicial Review

The High Court of Delhi has recently passed an important decision involving references to a major judicial conflict between the demands of national security and the primary principles of natural justice. The case related to the one of the most well known aviation service providers, Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited whose security clearances were cancelled suddenly by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), a situation which raised a serious concern of procedure fairness in the name of national security.

The central Issue of the Battle: Loss of Security Clearance

Celebi Airport Services India Private Limited is a ground handling company that provides services at the key Indian airports, and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited also provides cargo handling services at the Indira Gandhi International Airport but is operating under security clearance issued by BCAS with series of background checks conducted. The two are very crucial in their operation and were renewed as recently as November 21, 2022, to last five years. But, on May 15, 2025 BCAS issued orders cancelling these clearances without prior notice giving the reason as, (and only as), National Security. At the same time, an order was made that the employees of Celebi were to be transferred to third-party operators.

Our petitioners maintained that such acts were unilateral, without reasons being disclosed, and more importantly they were executed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. This so called deprivation of due process was the main issue on their appeal to the High Court. Before the revocation, on May 14, 2025, this representation was given in detail to BCAS by Celebi Aviation holding, its parent company clearing its ownership structure (more than 65 percent is held by foreign institutional investors), and its purely commercial nature as well as the high levels of investment in India. This notwithstanding, no hearing was allowed nor even the representation heard prior to the passing of the impugned orders.

A Legal Challenge The Pillars of Natural Justice:

The disregard against established rules of natural justice was the mainstay of the argument of the petitioners. According to them, the orders of revocation were received as a bolt of the blue; all with no show cause notice, hearing, or even just state of causes that warranted such drastic step. To be more precise, the petitioners pointed to the explicit violation of the rule 12 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023. As per this rule, the Director General, BCAS is bound to provide an entity with an opportunity of being heard, or to note reasons in writing before suspending, canceling or imposing conditions on any security clearance, particularly where he/she feels that the action is required in the interest of national security or civil aviation security. The petitioners maintained that Rule 12 is binding without escapes and any order that is issued in its contravention is ineffective.

To emphasize this they referred to previous legal precedents according to which even where a provision does not expressly exist, the principles of natural justice are compulsory where an order implies some form of a civil implication or a civil right is involved. The petitioners even claimed that the denial of natural justice alone forms sufficient prejudice and it is not necessary to prove that the petitioners have been harmed to greater extent.

Is National Security a Shield or a Sword?

The case directly faced the delicacy of the tension between national security agenda and the right to a fair hearing. The main objection of the respondents was the throwing of the case on the ground of national security criminality and that, since it was based on national security, it is worth setting aside the strict interpretation of natural justice.

The Court however took its time to carefully analyze the powers of judicial review in the areas of national security but it had a lot to rely on with regard to the Supreme Court ruling in a landmark case in which the apex court ruled.

The case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India. This precedence opined that courts are expected to give due regard to the opinion of the State in the matter of its national security but judicial review is also possible.

is not absent completely even only just mentioned with the words national security. The State cannot invoke its national security as a “get out of jail free card” that deprives its citizens of having their lawful and legal recourse.

The

A two-pronged test of justifying abrogation of natural justice in national security cases has been laid down by Madhyamam case which is that: first, that before the court can uphold national security concerns involved, State must show that the national security concern were truly in play and second that the state must show that abrogation of the natural justice is justified based on the facts of that case. It also made it clear that the courts should strive to apply the minimum impairment approach when treating claims of confidentiality on grounds of national security like turning in documents under cover of the court to as much as possible embrace the ideas of a “free Court.” Incidentally, the Supreme Court in

It was explained by Madhyamam, too, that unexceptionable criticisms of government policy, however held to be anti-establishment, cannot be adjudged hostile to national security, a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech being created to that extent when security clearance has been refused on the basis of that kind of evaluation.

Ruling of the Court: The Maintaining of National Security in the Case

In the case of Celebi, the High Court of Delhi finally held that the two-fold tests put in place by the Supreme Court are valid.

Madhyamam were happy. The court decided that; (i) that the State did indeed meet the requirement that national security was involved in the case of Celebi and (ii) the State had exactly justified the over-riding principles of natural justice with regard to the specific circumstances involved. The court also decided that any other means less restrictive than accepting report of the concerned agency in a sealed cover was not possible that is the way in a particular case.

It was highlighted in the judgment that the main principles of natural justice are essential but for some extraordinary cases of actual national security risks, such procedural assurances can be limited. The court had noted that the secrecy of the documents which resulted to revoking of the security clearance must be upheld and that the contents of the documents would not be in the interest of security and safety concerns and international relations.

A See-saw Between

This case sends a much-needed warning of the constant conflict between protecting national security, and securing individual rights to due process. On the one hand, although the court did not state that the application of national security by the State can be an absolute obstacle to judicial review, it acknowledged that national security can in certain cases of urgent necessity warrant abandonment of fundamentals of natural justice to natural justice, where alternative to such a position is not practicable. This judgment is important to restate the fact that every case must be judged on its own facts so that the balance between these crucial principles is achieved in a proper manner.