The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reprimanded the Union government over the air pollution crisis in Delhi and its surrounding areas. A two-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar and comprising Justice Tushar Rao, observed that if authorities cannot provide clean air to people, then the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers should be reduced. Currently, air purifiers attract 18 per cent GST.
The court asked the government counsel to report back at 2.30 pm after taking instructions on the issue.
“This is the minimum that you can do. Every citizen requires fresh air. If you can’t do it, the minimum you can do is reduce GST,” Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying.
The observations came while the court was hearing a plea seeking a reduction in GST on air purifiers and their categorisation as a ‘medical device’.
The petitioner, Kapil Madan, submitted before the court that air purifiers cannot be treated as luxury items amid the air pollution crisis in Delhi.
The petition challenges the 18 per cent GST levied on air purifiers, arguing that the high tax rate makes these devices financially inaccessible to large sections of the population. It contends that air purifiers have become essential for maintaining minimally safe indoor air quality and that the current tax burden is arbitrary, unreasonable, and constitutionally impermissible. The petition further emphasises that air purifiers perform critical functions by enabling safe respiration and mitigating life-threatening health exposures.
The legal argument centres on the classification of air purifiers as medical devices under a 2020 Central government notification, placing them within preventive and physiological-support categories. The petition asserts that the 18 per cent GST rate amounts to arbitrary fiscal classification, particularly when compared to functionally equivalent devices taxed at just 5 per cent. This differential treatment, it argues, fails constitutional tests by lacking a rational nexus with public health objectives and not meeting the standard of “intelligible differentia,” thereby warranting judicial intervention.
