Introduction:

In a significant public interest intervention shaped by the worsening air quality crisis in the national capital, the Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax Council to urgently convene a meeting to decide whether the GST on air purifiers should be reduced or abolished altogether. The direction was issued while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Kapil Madan against the Union of India and others, challenging the imposition of 18 percent GST on air purifiers and seeking their recognition as medical devices. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, which took serious note of the prevailing air pollution levels in Delhi and adjoining regions. The Court observed that air pollution in the capital has reached alarming proportions and described the situation as an “emergency,” warranting immediate governmental response. At a prima facie stage, the Bench expressed the view that air purifiers, considering the functions they perform in facilitating breathing and mitigating health risks, could reasonably attract a reduced GST rate of 5 percent, similar to medical devices notified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. While recognising that GST-related decisions are matters of fiscal policy falling within the domain of the GST Council, the Court emphasised that public health considerations and parliamentary recommendations cannot be ignored, particularly in an environmental crisis affecting millions of citizens.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar argued that the continued imposition of 18 percent GST on air purifiers was arbitrary, unreasonable, and insensitive to the grave public health emergency caused by hazardous air quality in Delhi and surrounding areas. It was contended that air purifiers are no longer luxury consumer goods but essential devices required for safe breathing, especially for children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory ailments. The petitioner relied heavily on a February 2020 notification issued under Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which classifies certain devices as medical devices. According to the petitioner, air purifiers squarely fall within the spirit of this notification, as they directly contribute to respiratory health and prevention of disease. It was pointed out that medical devices covered by the said notification attract only 5 percent GST, whereas air purifiers continue to be taxed at a much higher rate of 18 percent, creating an unreasonable and discriminatory classification. The petitioner further drew the Court’s attention to a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Climate Change, which had recommended that the government either abolish GST on air purifiers or substantially lower the rate, keeping in view the deteriorating air quality and its adverse impact on public health. Emphasising the urgency of the matter, it was submitted that the executive already possesses sufficient statutory and administrative mechanisms to include air purifiers within the concessional tax regime without delay, and that the failure to do so violates the right to health and clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Union Government, represented by its counsel, resisted any immediate judicial direction mandating reduction or exemption of GST on air purifiers, submitting that taxation policy falls squarely within the legislative and executive domain. It was argued that GST rates are determined collectively by the GST Council, a constitutional body comprising representatives of all States and Union Territories, and any alteration in tax rates must follow the prescribed procedure. The Union counsel emphasised that the Court should exercise restraint and respect the separation of powers, as decisions regarding GST involve complex fiscal considerations and consensus-building among multiple stakeholders. It was also pointed out that convening a meeting of the GST Council involves logistical and procedural challenges, given its pan-India composition. However, the Union did not dispute the seriousness of the air pollution crisis and acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner deserved consideration by the appropriate policy-making body. The Court, while engaging with these submissions, sought to strike a balance between judicial restraint in fiscal matters and the pressing need for timely executive action in a public health emergency.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the parties and considering the submissions, the Delhi High Court issued notice on the petition and passed a detailed interim order directing the GST Council to take up the issue of lowering or abolishing GST on air purifiers at the earliest. The Court noted that its attention had been drawn to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report on climate change, which had expressly recommended either abolition or reduction of GST on air purifiers. Observing that such recommendations reflect legislative concern over the public health impact of air pollution, the Bench held that they could not be brushed aside lightly. While acknowledging that the GST Council is a pan-India constitutional body and that convening a meeting may take time, the Court stressed that the extraordinary air quality situation in Delhi and nearby areas warranted urgent action. The Bench categorically stated that if a physical meeting of the GST Council was not feasible, the same could be convened through video conferencing, thereby removing any logistical impediment to timely decision-making. Significantly, the Court recorded its prima facie view that air purifiers perform functions closely aligned with medical devices, particularly in enabling safe breathing and reducing health risks associated with polluted air. Referring to the February 2020 notification under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court observed that medical devices covered by the notification are taxed at 5 percent GST, and it found no apparent reason why air purifiers could not be extended similar treatment. The Bench clarified that it was not itself fixing the GST rate but was directing the appropriate authority, namely the GST Council, to urgently deliberate and take a reasoned decision on the issue. Accordingly, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the GST Council at the earliest, taking into account the concerns raised in the petition, the parliamentary recommendations, and the prevailing environmental conditions. The case was listed for further hearing on December 26, directing the Union to seek instructions on how soon the GST Council could convene and decide the matter. Through this order, the Court underscored that while fiscal policy is ordinarily outside judicial purview, constitutional courts cannot remain passive when public health and environmental emergencies demand swift policy consideration.