A critical legal battle unfolding in the Delhi High Court is set to determine whether breathing clean air in India's polluted capital is a fundamental right or a taxable luxury. At the core of the dispute is the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on air purifiers, with petitioners arguing for a drastic rate cut by reclassifying these devices as essential, life-saving medical equipment.
Constitutional Clash: Separation of Powers vs. Right to Life
The Central Government's defense hinges on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It maintains that tax rate fixation is the exclusive domain of the executive and the GST Council, and judicial intervention would breach constitutional boundaries. However, legal experts provide a nuanced counterpoint.
Raheel Patel, Partner at Gandhi Law Associates, agrees that courts cannot rewrite tax policy but emphasizes they are not barred from examining if a rate is "manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory." Advocate Sandeep Chilana adds that while fiscal restraint is important, separation of powers does not grant complete immunity from constitutional scrutiny. When a tax policy impacts the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21, the court has a duty to ensure the State has duly considered the public health crisis.
The Medical Device Dilemma and Regulatory Hurdles
The petition's technical argument seeks to classify air purifiers as "medical devices" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which would place them in a lower tax slab. Vineet Bhatia, Founder of Bhatia & Bhatia, notes this is a classification dispute, and the government has the power to qualify them as such if intended for disease prevention.
However, the legal bar is high. Advocate Tushar Kumar clarifies that a product qualifies as a medical device only if intended for "diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, or treatment of disease, as certified by a regulator." Currently, air purifiers are classified as consumer appliances for general environmental improvement under HSN code 8421.
Shravanth Shanker, an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court, explains that while the definition of a 'drug' under Section 3(b) of the Act is broad enough to potentially include air purifiers for respiratory issues, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has not notified them as medical devices. Even if notified, Kumar points out that GST operates under a distinct tariff regime, making regulatory status persuasive, not determinative, for tax purposes.
Floodgates, Monopolies, and the Role of the GST Council
Legal experts warn of a potential "domino effect" if the court orders a tax cut. Patel cautions that such a ruling could open floodgates for sector-specific Public Interest Litigations (PILs) from water filter or organic food producers, undermining the uniformity and predictability of the GST system, which relies on federal consensus through the GST Council.
The Centre has also raised a curious defense: reclassification could create oligopolistic conditions by subjecting air purifiers to the stringent Medical Device Rules (MDR) 2017. This would require specific licenses (MD-5, MD-15) and quality standards, potentially sidelining smaller players and raising prices despite a lower tax. While Patel acknowledges the concern isn't illusory, Bhatia views it as unrealistic, suggesting market access remains open for those meeting safety norms.
All experts point to the GST Council under Article 279A as the ultimate arbiter. Bhatia notes the Council adopts a holistic approach, balancing revenue and public interest. While a court can direct the Council to take a reasoned decision within a timeframe, it cannot mandate a specific tax rate. Shanker highlights the Council's past flexibility, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the severe Delhi pollution crisis could be treated as a similar emergency.
Article 21: The Supreme Argument for Affordable Clean Air
The petitioners' most potent argument is the Right to Life under Article 21. In cities like Delhi, where the Air Quality Index (AQI) regularly hits 'severe' and 'hazardous' levels, clean air is framed as a biological necessity, not a luxury.
Chilana asserts there is "strong constitutional force" in this argument, stating that while revenue needs are legitimate, they cannot override the State's duty to protect life and health. Kumar offers a balanced perspective, agreeing that public health is a core component of Article 21 and the State has an obligation to mitigate serious health risks. However, he suggests the government has other policy tools—like targeted subsidies or public health programs—to address affordability without unsettling the entire GST framework.
The Path Forward: Beyond the Courtroom
The outcome of this case is a litmus test for India's legal system in responding to environmental health emergencies. If the PIL fails, Chilana suggests the most effective route would be a data-backed representation to the GST Council, supported by public health evidence, pollution data, and impact studies. State governments from severely polluted regions could also raise the issue within the Council.
Patel argues that while public health considerations are compelling, courts cannot convert policy desirability into tax mandates. He recommends targeted subsidies, procurement programs, or regulatory incentives as more appropriate responses than ad hoc tax reclassification.
As the Delhi High Court deliberates, millions of citizens in smog-choked cities await a decision that could redefine the 'right to breathe' as not just fundamental, but also financially accessible. The verdict will resonate far beyond tax slabs, challenging how law, health, and economics intersect in the face of a relentless environmental crisis.
