The Central Government has firmly told the Delhi High Court that courts cannot direct a cut in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers or re-classify them as “medical devices” to bring them under a lower tax slab. In its detailed affidavit, the Centre emphasised that decisions on GST rates, classifications, and exemptions fall exclusively within the mandate of the GST Council and that judicial intervention in such fiscal matters is constitutionally impermissible.

Context: Public Health, Air Pollution and GST Debate

Air pollution in Delhi and other Indian cities has been a persistent public health challenge, particularly during winter months when AQI levels spike into hazardous zones. In this backdrop, air purifiers – devices that filter particulate matter from indoor air – have become common household items. However, unlike other health-related equipment that qualify for lower GST rates, air purifiers attract an 18% GST under tariff heading 8421. Advocates and public interest groups argue this makes them unaffordable for many citizens, especially vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly and those with respiratory illnesses.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging this taxation approach and urging the court to compel reclassification of air purifiers as “medical devices” (which currently attract a 5% GST) and direct a tax cut. The petition contends that given the extreme air quality crisis, GST should be rationalised to reduce the financial burden on citizens and make such equipment more accessible.

Court Chronology: Key Developments in the Petition

  • December 24, 2025: The Delhi High Court first heard the PIL and observed that the worsening air quality warranted urgent consideration of GST relief on air purifiers. The bench directed the GST Council to convene a meeting at the earliest to consider lowering or abolishing the tax.

  • December 26, 2025: The Centre was asked to file a detailed response within ten days. In these arguments, the government contended that the GST Council lacked authority to reclassify air purifiers as medical devices, pointing instead to the Health Ministry’s jurisdiction over such classifications.

  • January 8-9, 2026: The Centre’s detailed counter-affidavit was filed, reiterating that judicial directions on GST cuts or reclassification would violate constitutional principles. The matter was listed for further hearing before a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

Centre’s Reply: Constitutional Scheme and GST Framework

In its affidavit to the Delhi High Court, the Central Government advanced several legal and constitutional arguments against judicial intervention in GST rate decisions:

Article 279A and GST Council’s Exclusive Domain

The Centre underscored that Article 279A of the Constitution establishes the GST Council as the sole authority empowered to recommend GST rates, exemptions, classifications and related fiscal policy matters. Any attempt by the judiciary to direct specific outcomes on tax matters would amount to stepping into the domain of a constitutionally designated decision-making body.

Separation of Powers

The Government highlighted that judicial directions on GST rates would violate the doctrine of separation of powers by enabling courts to perform functions specifically entrusted to the GST Council. The Centre warned that such intervention could render the Council a mere “rubber stamp”, undermining cooperative federalism which GST architecture is built upon.

On Classification as ‘Medical Device’

The affidavit also pointed out that reclassifying air purifiers as medical devices for tax purposes would have regulatory consequences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 – potentially subjecting the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of purifiers to strict licensing and compliance requirements. The Centre termed the PIL a “colourable and motivated exercise”, arguing that the push for reclassification appears to be aimed more at securing commercial advantage than genuine public interest.

Parliamentary and GST Council Processes

The Government maintained that the matter of tax rationalisation on air purifiers was already under consideration through ongoing institutional and parliamentary mechanisms, including inputs from standing committees and GST Council deliberations. The Centre cautioned that judicial bypass of these established procedures would set a dangerous precedent.

Conclusion: Balancing Constitutional Integrity and Public Health

From a constitutional and jurisprudential standpoint, the Centre’s arguments carry significant weight. The GST Council — not the judiciary — is the body entrusted with tax rate decisions. Judicial pronouncements that attempt to set fiscal policy would indeed upset the balance envisaged under the Constitution and could strain cooperative federalism.

However, this dispute underscores a larger public health concern: in conditions of severe air pollution, accessibility and affordability of air purification devices become matters of societal welfare. While legal boundaries must be respected, policy responses should also reflect public health imperatives. In the past, India has extended tax relief on essential medical or critical commodities during emergencies to ease burdens on citizens.

Given the severity of urban air quality issues and the persuasive case for making life-saving devices more accessible, it is essential for the GST Council to consider this matter on priority and possibly find an amicable solution. Much political discourse may follow, but in the final analysis, the burden of inaction will fall on the people. Let us see whether this issue finds due space on the agenda of the next GST Council meeting and whether a balanced outcome is reached that respects constitutional constraints while addressing public health needs.