In a significant reprieve for Turkish aviation ground handler Celebi, the Bombay High Court on May 26 ordered Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) to halt all proceedings related to awarding new contracts for ground and bridge handling services at Mumbai’s busy international airport.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, while granting the interim relief, emphasised that no final action should be taken on the fresh tenders until Celebi’s petitions are heard after the court’s summer recess in June, according to reports.
This legal development comes amid a rapidly intensifying diplomatic and legal dispute triggered by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoking Celebi’s security clearance earlier this month. Citing national security concerns, the move has prompted airports nationwide to promptly terminate contracts with the Turkish company’s Indian subsidiaries.
The revocation came after a diplomatic dispute arose when Turkey publicly supported Pakistan following Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to cross-border terrorism. This stance has had tangible commercial repercussions, with Celebi’s Indian operations—especially at key airports like Mumbai and Delhi—now facing heightened scrutiny.
In response, Celebi Nas Airport Services India, which manages vital bridge and ground handling services in Mumbai, has taken legal action by filing three separate petitions. These challenge both the BCAS directive and MIAL’s decision to terminate contracts. Holding a 59 per cent stake in the Mumbai joint venture, Celebi contends that the government’s actions were arbitrary, excessive, and lacked proper legal justification.
The company has requested the court to annul the BCAS order, reinstate the cancelled agreements—including the Bridge Mounted Equipment Service Agreement, the Ground Handling Services contract, and the Concession Agreement—and suspend MIAL’s new tender process that began on May 17.
The dispute extends beyond Mumbai, with Celebi’s sister companies—Celebi Airport Services India and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India—filing petitions in the Delhi High Court seeking similar relief after their contracts were terminated at the national capital’s airport.
In a series of rulings that have stirred legal and political circles alike, the Bombay High Court on May 26 handed down three high-profile decisions, each touching on sensitive issues of national security, free speech, and refugee rights. From halting airport contracts to granting bail in a politically charged speech case, the court’s actions are now under sharp public and institutional scrutiny.
🚨 3 BIG decisions from Bombay HC:
— Grants bail to 19-yr-old Khadija Shaikh, who called Kashmir “Indian Occupied” & Op Sindoor “Hindutva Terrorism”
— Orders release of Yemeni refugee Md Qassim Al Shibah held at Byculla PS
— Halts Mumbai airport’s bid to replace Turkey’s Çelebi— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) May 28, 2025
In another ruling that drew sharp reactions, the High Court granted bail to 19-year-old Khadija Shaikh, who was arrested for a controversial social media post where she described Kashmir as “Indian-occupied” and referred to India’s anti-terror military action, Operation Sindoor, as “Hindutva terrorism.” Prosecutors had charged Shaikh under provisions related to sedition and promoting enmity.
While granting bail, the court noted that dissent, however provocative, must be weighed against constitutional freedoms. The judgment has polarised opinion, praised by free speech advocates but criticised by nationalist groups, who argue it could embolden anti-state rhetoric.
In a quieter but equally significant order, the court directed the release of Yemeni refugee Md Qassim Al Shibah, who had been detained at Byculla Police Station under unclear legal grounds. His prolonged detention, reportedly due to incomplete immigration documentation, had raised concerns among human rights organisations.
The court emphasised that indefinite detention without formal charges undermines the rule of law and ordered his release, prompting fresh debate over India’s refugee and immigration policy framework, particularly for asylum seekers from conflict-ridden regions.
The trio of rulings signals a judiciary willing to engage assertively with matters of state power, civil liberties, and international diplomacy. However, they have also prompted questions about the balance between legal reasoning and national security issues, especially in a tensed environment.
Comments