A public interest lawsuit in the Delhi High Court that seeks to classify air purifiers as medical devices and lower their GST charge from 18% to 5% has been aggressively fought by the Central government. The Center cautioned in a thorough affidavit submitted on January 4 through the Ministry of Finance that such a move would increase regulatory barriers, restrict supply in a market that is already under stress, and give benefits to a small number of companies. In order to keep the focus on Delhi’s suffocating air quality and the larger dispute over product classification and taxation, the court has set the next hearing for Friday.
PIL Seeks Reclassification Amid Delhi’s Air Crisis:
Practising advocate Kapil Madan filed the PIL, arguing air purifiers deserve medical device status because they filter out fine particulate matter, allergens, bioaerosols, and toxic pollutants that trigger asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart issues. The plea points to a February 2020 notification from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which widened the definition of medical devices to include items aimed at preventing or easing disease through physical or mechanical action. Petitioner claims devices with HEPA filters and air-quality sensors squarely fit this expanded scope, acting as preventive tools that cut PM2.5 and PM10 exposure, especially vital in Delhi where pollution spikes send hospital admissions soaring among kids, elders, and the vulnerable.
The petition slams the current 18 per cent GST on air purifiers classified under HSN code 8421 for filtering machinery as arbitrary when many medical devices under HSN 9018-9022 enjoy a 5 per cent rate after the GST Council’s September 2025 rationalisation. It calls this differential treatment unreasonable, lacking any rational link to public health goals, and demands judicial nudge to fix it. During a December 26 hearing, a vacation bench of Justices Vikas Mahajan and Vinod Kumar gave the Centre 10 days to respond after Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman asked for time, with the court noting hazardous pollution levels around Delhi.
Centre’s Counter: Regulations Would Hurt Availability
The government’s affidavit shoots down the reclassification idea, stressing that tagging air purifiers as medical devices under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Medical Devices Rules would trigger extra licensing, quality checks, and compliances, none of which exist now for these freely sold appliances. This shift, it argues, would bar new entrants, shrink market participation, and worsen supply shortages in a sector already under pressure from rising demand. Far from helping public health, such rules could make purifiers scarcer and pricier, defeating the PIL’s own aims.
Regarding GST, the Center explains that there is no connection between the two regimes and that lower rates for medical products are the result of decisions made by the GST Council rather than notifications from the health ministry. The constitutional GST Council, an essential component of cooperative federalism that unites the federal government and the states, is entirely responsible for adjusting the 18% share of air purifiers, which is not in the top 40%. Court-mandated rate reductions or coerced recommendations are described in the affidavit as overreach that would disrupt the federal balance and convert the Council into a rubber stamp.
Even if pollution in Delhi justifies special treatment locally, the Centre pushes back: national product rules can’t vary by region, or chaos ensues elsewhere with cleaner air. It dubs the PIL a “colourable and motivated attempt,” hinting the real goal isn’t affordability or health but locking in advantages for licensed players through monopolistic controls.
Court Urges GST Review, Centre Stands Firm on Process:
The Delhi High Court, alive to Delhi-NCR’s toxic winter smog, had urged the Centre to weigh slashing GST on purifiers given the public health emergency. Yet the affidavit holds ground: judicial interference in tax policy bypasses the mandated process, leaving no room for parallel authorities. The matter now heads to a bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, where these tensions over regulation, revenue, and respirators will play out.
This conflict highlights broader fights in India’s policy puzzle of balancing innovation and access versus safety nets during urban pollution wars. Air purifiers have exploded as must-haves in polluted pockets, but reclassifying them risks transforming common utilities into guarded luxuries. As Delhi endures another season of AQI nightmares, the ruling might have consequences for consumer goods, health technology, and tax policy, demanding a reconsideration of what constitutes “medical” when breathing clean air feels like medicine.
