New Delhi: “We are working with a strange Needle jennis The situation where there is a threat to the security of the airport at various Indian airports and cannot be taken lightly, ”the Center told the Delhi High Court on Thursday during a hearing challenge Turkish Ground-Handalings firm for the cancellation of safety approval for Easonal Aviation.
Emphasizing the urgency of the action, the Center said that the delay can beat the entire point of action, and therefore, the principle of planery or full powers comes in question. The principle of planery or absolute powers refers to the complete and unlimited powers given to a body or person to take decisions or to work on a specific issue.
Remembering the 2014 SC rule in the past. Armymen’s Security Services vs. India, the Union of India, argued that the principles of natural justice should not be complied with when it comes to national security matters. It also said that the interests of national security are not a matter of judicial decision, but a matter of policy.
Significantly, Justice Sachin Dutta asked the central government to submit a letter in the court on 15 May, after which the security approval of the Turkish company was canceled.
There are various categories of powers under airplane rules, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta of India said, while such a category powers are particularly related to security concerns
What does the law say
Initially, Mehta cited Rule 6 of the aircraft (security) rules, 2023, which allows the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to issue a written direction, which is in line with the Indian aims, 2024, and “in the interests of national security”. He also said that such instructions would be binding for those who have been issued.
In addition, the Central Government also kept the role and responsibilities of the Director General, which is responsible for fulfilling regulatory and inspection tasks in relation to civil aviation safety cases. One of these responsibilities is “to carry out security risk evaluation, and develop guidelines and processes”, Rule 3 (1) (2) (i) states that it is based on the assessment of the threat by national security agencies.
In doing so, the court also turned to Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, which allows the Director General to issue directions on one of the cases specified in the provision, including aircraft operations, air traffic control, aerodrome operations, communication, navigation, monitoring and air traffic management facilities and civic aviation against work without any differences.
Significantly, one of the responsibilities of the DG has to make provisions to reply immediately to fulfill any increased safety threat, the Center told the court that such power can be used in cases where the Director General or other officials are satisfied that “it is necessary to protect India’s security or aircraft operation”.
Although the Indian Aero Legislature, 2024, replaced the Eastern Aircraft Act, 1934, the provisions of two laws are largely the same, the Center still presented before the court, while adding that the security approval for the Turkish firm was given under the 1934 Act.
Work of ground-handling contractors
The aircraft (security) rules, describe a “ground handling agency” as a unit installed to provide ground-handling services at an airport.
Importantly, the Center stated that such ground handling contractors do many functions, and aircraft, check-in counters, access to passenger data, which sometimes have a direct reach to confidential, VIP movements and flight movements.
Reply to Çelebi Discussion
At Wednesday’s hearing, the petitioner Turkish company, through senior advocate Mukul Rohtgi, had trusted the Middle broadcast decision, to say that the right to freedom of speech would end national security concerns.
However, the Solicitor General today rejected the dependence saying that the law is clear that when the issue is of national security, there is no need to share the reasons. He also argued that in that case, the TV channel was promoting a special political ideology.
Although Rohtgi clarified that national security concerns are justified, he argued for the petitioners that at least some notice or some hearing should have been held before the Turkish company’s approval was canceled.
(Edited by Zininia Ru Chaudhary)
Also read: There is a blueprint for advanced air mobility development in India – dedest cities, travel time cut