Introduction:

In a significant constitutional and fiscal law controversy, the Delhi High Court is seized of a public interest litigation filed by advocate Kapil Madan seeking declaration of air purifiers as “medical devices” and reduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 18% to a concessional rate applicable to medical devices, the petition has been opposed by the Central Government through a detailed affidavit asserting that such relief cannot be granted by courts as it would bypass the constitutionally mandated mechanism of the GST Council under Article 279A of the Constitution of India, the matter is listed before a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, and the dispute raises critical questions on separation of powers, federalism, fiscal policy, and the scope of judicial review over taxation decisions, the petitioner has projected the case as one of public health necessity in the face of extreme air pollution, while the Union of India has characterized it as a colourable attempt to secure regulatory reclassification through judicial intervention, the case thus places at the forefront the tension between public health concerns and constitutional limits on judicial interference in taxation policy.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Kapil Madan, has argued that air purifiers are no longer luxury consumer products but have become essential protective tools in cities suffering from hazardous air quality, he contends that air purifiers perform a preventive medical function by mechanically filtering particulate matter and toxic pollutants, thereby preventing respiratory and cardiovascular ailments, and hence fall within the scope of medical devices as contemplated under notifications issued under Section 3(b)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, he further submits that medical devices are taxed at a concessional GST rate of 5%, while air purifiers continue to be taxed at 18%, which according to him lacks any rational, scientific, or intelligible basis, particularly when both categories serve preventive health purposes, the petitioner argues that such classification violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating similarly situated health-related devices unequally, he also contends that in the context of recurring air pollution emergencies, access to air purifiers should be treated as part of public health preparedness, and fiscal policy should not discourage their usage through high taxation, the petitioner thus seeks judicial direction to either declare air purifiers as medical devices or to compel reconsideration of their GST rate, on the other hand, the Central Government has taken a firm constitutional stand that GST rates and product classifications fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the GST Council, which is a federal constitutional body comprising representatives of both the Union and the States, the affidavit asserts that Article 279A expressly entrusts the GST Council with the responsibility of making recommendations on tax rates, exemptions, and classifications, and any judicial direction fixing or altering GST rates would directly violate the constitutional design, the Government submits that even directing the GST Council to convene a meeting or consider a specific proposal would amount to courts stepping into the shoes of the Council, thereby usurping powers deliberately assigned to an inter-governmental body, it further argues that such interference would disturb the delicate federal balance and undermine the principle of harmonisation envisaged under Article 279A(6), the affidavit warns that if courts begin issuing directions on fiscal policy, the GST Council would be reduced to a mere rubber stamp, defeating the consultative and cooperative federalism model underlying GST, the Government also invokes the doctrine of separation of powers, contending that taxation policy is a legislative and executive domain, and judicial intervention would violate the basic structure of the Constitution, additionally, the Centre questions the bona fides of the PIL, alleging that it is a motivated attempt to secure commercial or regulatory advantage under the guise of public interest, and asserts that policy reform, if any, must emerge from political and legislative processes, not judicial mandates.

Court’s Judgment:

As of now, the Delhi High Court has not delivered its final judgment on the merits of the PIL, and the matter remains pending consideration before the Division Bench, however, the Government’s affidavit frames the legal contours within which the Court is expected to evaluate the petition, namely, whether judicial review can extend to directing changes in tax classification and GST rates, which are constitutionally assigned to the GST Council, the Court is likely to examine whether the relief sought is justiciable at all, or whether it amounts to judicial overreach into fiscal policy, past Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently held that taxation policy and rate fixation are matters of legislative discretion unless they are patently arbitrary or unconstitutional, and even then, courts generally strike down provisions rather than substitute tax rates, the High Court will also have to balance public health concerns raised by the petitioner against institutional limits imposed by constitutional structure, while courts have intervened in environmental and health matters through policy directions, GST occupies a unique constitutional position post-101st Constitutional Amendment, where fiscal federalism is explicitly institutionalized through the GST Council, therefore, the key judicial question is not whether air pollution is a serious public health issue, which is undisputed, but whether courts can mandate fiscal reclassification or compel reconsideration by a constitutional tax body, the outcome of this case is expected to clarify the boundaries of PIL jurisdiction in taxation matters and reaffirm or recalibrate the balance between public interest litigation and constitutional separation of fiscal powers.