Centre opposes in High Court plea to reduce GST on air purifiers, says judicial intervention impermissible

The Central government's opposition to a plea seeking reduced Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers in the Delhi High Court brings to the forefront a critical intersection of public health, fiscal policy, and judicial review in India. At its core, this issue highlights the severe environmental crisis of air pollution, particularly in Delhi, and the government's approach to tackling its socio-economic ramifications.

**Background Context:** Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) have consistently grappled with alarming levels of air pollution, especially during the winter months. This 'extreme emergency crisis,' as described by advocate Kapil Madan, is a perennial public health concern, leading to respiratory illnesses, reduced life expectancy, and significant economic costs. In response, citizens often resort to personal protective measures, including air purifiers, to safeguard their health indoors. The Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced on July 1, 2017, aimed to simplify India's indirect tax structure by subsuming various central and state levies. Under GST, goods and services are classified into different slabs (0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) based on their perceived necessity and luxury status. Air purifiers currently fall under a higher tax bracket, often 18% or even 28% depending on classification, which petitioners argue makes them unaffordable for many, despite being essential health devices in polluted environments.

**What Happened:** Advocate Kapil Madan filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that air purifiers should not be classified as luxury items given the severe air pollution in Delhi. He contended that they are essential health devices and, therefore, their GST rate should be reduced to make them more accessible and affordable for the common public. The Central government, through its counsel, opposed this plea, asserting that judicial intervention in tax policy matters is impermissible. This stance reflects the government's view that tax rates and classifications fall squarely within the domain of the executive and legislative branches, specifically the GST Council, and are not subject to judicial review unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles or a manifest arbitrariness.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

* **Advocate Kapil Madan (and implicitly, the Public/Citizens):** As the petitioner, he represents the public interest, seeking relief for citizens struggling with the health impacts of air pollution and the high cost of mitigation tools. His plea underscores the 'Right to Clean Air' as an extension of the 'Right to Life' (Article 21).

* **The Central Government:** As the respondent, it defends its fiscal policy prerogatives and the autonomy of the GST Council. Its primary concern is maintaining the integrity of the tax structure and ensuring revenue collection, while also adhering to the principle of separation of powers.

* **The Delhi High Court:** The judicial body tasked with hearing the petition. It must balance the public health concerns raised by the petitioner with the government's argument regarding the limits of judicial intervention in policy matters. The court's decision will set a precedent for future challenges to tax classifications.

* **The GST Council:** Although not directly a party to the litigation, the GST Council is the ultimate authority for deciding GST rates and classifications. Comprising the Union Finance Minister (chairperson), the Union Minister of State in charge of Revenue or Finance, and state finance ministers, it is a crucial body for any potential change in the GST rate on air purifiers.

**Significance for India:** This case carries significant implications for India. Firstly, it reignites the debate on **public health versus fiscal policy**. Should essential health items, especially during environmental crises, be taxed at lower rates to ensure accessibility, even if it impacts government revenue? Secondly, it tests the boundaries of **judicial review and the separation of powers**. The judiciary's role is to interpret laws and ensure constitutional validity, but traditionally, courts have been hesitant to interfere with fiscal policy, viewing it as an executive domain. A decision to intervene could set a precedent for courts to scrutinize other tax classifications. Thirdly, it highlights the broader issue of **environmental governance** in India. The fact that citizens must rely on expensive personal devices like air purifiers, rather than effective systemic solutions to air pollution, points to systemic failures in environmental policy implementation. Lastly, it brings attention to the **GST structure** itself – whether it is agile enough to respond to emergent public health needs or if its classification system is too rigid.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:** India's tax system underwent a monumental shift with the implementation of GST. Before GST, indirect taxes were fragmented, leading to cascading effects. GST aimed for a unified market and simplified taxation. The **Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016**, introduced **Article 246A**, granting concurrent powers to both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws with respect to GST. More importantly, **Article 279A** established the GST Council, an extra-constitutional body empowered to make recommendations on GST rates, exemptions, thresholds, and classifications. The Centre's argument hinges on the principle that the GST Council's recommendations, once adopted, constitute policy decisions that are typically beyond judicial scrutiny, except in cases of manifest arbitrariness or unconstitutionality. The petitioner, conversely, invokes the spirit of **Article 21 (Right to Life)**, which the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. While courts have generally deferred to legislative wisdom in economic matters (e.g., *R.K. Garg v. Union of India, 1981*), the unique context of a public health emergency due to pollution could prompt a different judicial outlook, especially when linked to fundamental rights.

**Future Implications:** The High Court's decision will be closely watched. If the court agrees to intervene, it could open the floodgates for similar petitions challenging GST rates on various goods deemed 'essential' during different crises, potentially creating complexities for the GST Council and the government's revenue projections. Conversely, if the court defers to the government's stance, it would reinforce the executive's prerogative in fiscal policy but might intensify public pressure on the GST Council to reconsider the rates. This case could also catalyse a broader discussion within the GST Council itself on having a more dynamic classification system that can adapt to public health emergencies or environmental crises, perhaps by creating special categories for essential health and environment-related goods. Ultimately, this legal battle underscores the urgent need for comprehensive and sustained policies to combat air pollution, rather than relying solely on individual mitigation efforts facilitated by tax adjustments.