Classifying air purifiers as medical device will restrict market entry, Centre tells HC
However, the Centre has rejected this argument, stating that medical devices attract a lower GST rate owing to a rate rationalisation exercise carried out in September 2025, and not because of the MOHFW-notified classification.
The HC, however, urged the Centre to consider the proposition of lowering GST rates on purifiers considering the hazardous pollution levels in Delhi and areas around it. It will hear the matter on Friday.
The Centre has opposed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Delhi High Court which sought to classify air purifiers as medical devices and slash GST rates on the devices from 18% to 5%, arguing that such classification would subject them to additional regulatory compliances, which in turn may “affect supply in a market already facing constraints.”
The Centre, in an affidavit filed through its Ministry of Finance on January 4, countered that notifying a device as a ‘medical device’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA), and the Medical Devices Rules (MDR) “merely brings such device within the regulatory framework of the said Act and Rules” and such classification has “no nexus with, and cannot determine, the rate of GST applicable to the said goods, which falls exclusively within the domain of the GST regime and the recommendations of the GST Council.”
The petitioner, practising advocate Kapil Madan, has proposed that air purifiers can be classified as ‘medical devices’ under a Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) notification of 2020, issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA), which considers such notified medical devices as drugs and places them in the lowest GST bracket of 5%.
However, the Centre has rejected this argument, stating that medical devices attract a lower GST rate owing to a rate rationalisation exercise carried out in September 2025, and not because of the MOHFW-notified classification.
If air purifiers are treated as medical devices, the Centre argued, it would regulate what is presently freely available in the market, restrict market entry, and increase compliance burdens that would inevitably narrow participation.
On the proposition to re-classify air purifiers, the Centre said, “holding that air purifiers are also medical devices would be counter-productive to the purported objective of the present PIL as it would subject air purifiers to additional regulatory compliances under the DCA and the MDR Rules, and would likely further affect supply in a market already facing constraints.”
While the HC has urged the Centre to consider the proposition of lowering GST rates on air purifiers in light of the hazardous air pollution levels in Delhi and areas around it, the Centre has countered, “even assuming that air purifiers could be regarded as medical devices having regard to air quality conditions in a particular region, the same would not justify their treatment as medical devices in other regions.”
Story continues below this ad
Further, pushing back on judicial intervention in GST-related decision-making, the Centre reiterated that “if courts were to issue directions on GST rates or compel specific recommendations, the GST Council would be reduced to a mere rubber stamp…”
Submitting that the GST Council is a constitutional body and an instrument of cooperative federalism, and “not a mere administrative institution”, the Centre reiterated that it is the “sole constitutionally designated body for making recommendations on matters pertaining to GST, including rates, exemptions and principles of levy”. This, according to the Centre, “leaves no scope for parallel, substitute or competing recommendation-making by any other institution/authority/body” in the domain of GST. It maintained that “judicial interference in such matters would necessarily bypass” the constitutionally mandated process “and disturb the federal equilibrium” protected by the Constitution.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
