SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Ex. Armymen’s Protection Services P. Ltd. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Union of India and others – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2876 /2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15000 of 2010]
Decided On : 26-02-2014
(1985) AC 374; (1916) II AC 77; (1974) AC 405; (2003) 1 AC 153 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The issue in this case is whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security.
The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government (by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security).
The appellant company was granted security clearance for a period of five years w.e.f. 17.04.2007 and on that basis it entered into a contract with Jet Airways. On 27.11.2008, the appellant company was informed that the security clearance had been withdrawn in national interest.
Appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
In case of national security a party cannot insist for strict adherence to principles of natural justice. The contract having expired this appeal has become infructuous.
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J. –
Leave granted.
2. Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interests are to be affected by decisions, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and unbiased hearing before the decisions are made. The principle is traceable to the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security, is the issue we are called upon to consider in this case.
3. The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Government to make rules providing for licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes and, thus, Aircraft Rules, 1937 have been framed. Rule 92 proves for ground handling services. The Rule reads as follows:
“92. Ground Handling Services- The licensee shall, while providing ground handling service by itself, ensure a competitive environment by allowing the airline operator at the airport to engage, without any restriction, any of the ground handling service provider who is permitted by the Central Government to provide such service:
Provided that such ground handling service provider shall be subject to the security clearance of the Central Government.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. For processing the security clearance, the Central Government created a Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCAS’). As per circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 19.02.2007 issued by BCAS, no ground handling agency shall be allowed to work in any airport without prior security clearance obtained from BCAS. The appellant company was granted security clearance for a period of five years w.e.f. 17.04.2007. On the strength of such clearance, the appellant company entered into a contract with Jet Airways for the ground handling services in various aerodromes including Patna. On 27.11.2008, the appellant company was informed that the security clearance had been withdrawn in national interest. That was challenged by the appellant company before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 758 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25.03.2009 directing the BCAS to afford a post decisional hearing. There was also a direction that the appellant should be furnished materials relied on by the respondents for withdrawal of the security clearance, without disclosing the source of information. The BCAS accordingly passed order dated 20.04.2009, holding the view that documents available in the file were classified as ‘secret’ and the same could not be shared with the appellant and, thus, order dated 27.11.2008 withdrawing the security clearance was affirmed. That was challenged by the appellant in the High Court leading to judgment dated 27.10.2009.
5. The learned Single Judge called for the files and they were produced in a sealed cover. According to the Single Judge “the information that is available is an apology in support of the action. There was nothing at all to justify any such emergent action so as to avoid pre- decisional hearing”. The court was also of the view that the principles of natural justice would have to be read into wherever any administrative action visits a person with civil consequences, unless such procedure is excluded by any Statute. However, the court also held that if there are justifiable facts and there is threat to national security, then, nobody, let alone the court, can insist on the compliance of principles of natural justice as a pre condition for taking any action resulting even in adverse civil consequences.
6. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that at least gist of allegations should be disclosed so that the affected party gets an opportunity to meet the same at th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.