Premium

Air purifier not luxury, PIL before Delhi High Court seeks reclassification as medical devices, challenges 18% GST

Delhi High Court PIL air purifier: The PIL says that imposing the highest GST slab on air purifiers during an ongoing air pollution crisis infringes on the fundamental right to life and clean air under Article 21.

The PIL before the Delhi High Court strongly criticises the differential tax treatment accorded to air purifiers as compared to other medical devices.Air purifier GST: The PIL before the Delhi High Court strongly criticises the differential tax treatment accorded to air purifiers as compared to other medical devices. (Image generated using AI)

GST on medical devices: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court has sought declaration of air purifiers as “medical devices” that air purifiers cannot be treated as “luxury” but as a “necessity” for the people to face the “extreme emergency crisis” due to air pollution in Delhi-NCR.

The petition, filed by advocate Kapil Madan, argued that the imposition of 18 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers is “arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional”.

The matter is likely to come up for hearing today.

Grounds

Urging the court to direct the Centre and other related authorities to bring in the category of medical device on which only five per cent GST is imposed, the PIL said, “Their essentiality, particularly during periods of ‘very poor’, ‘severe’ and ‘severe+’ AQI, mandates prompt reclassification of GST to ensure equitable access.”

Outlining the air quality in the Delhi-NCR region, the plea said the area is engulfed in an “extreme and perilous air-quality crisis”, where toxic concentrations of particulate matter routinely choke the atmosphere, rendering the very act of breathing “hazardous”.

Infographic: The PIL in Delhi High Court seeks air purifiers to be declared as “medical devices” and not seen as a "luxury" but as a "necessity". Infographic: The PIL in Delhi High Court seeks air purifiers to be declared as “medical devices” and not seen as a “luxury” but as a “necessity”.

“The city is witnessing alarming levels of respiratory illness, irreversible lung damage, cardiac distress, developmental harm to children, and a surge in premature deaths. The prevailing conditions constitute nothing short of a grave public-health emergency and pose an immediate, direct and unconstitutional assault on the right to life under Article 21,” it said.

According to the petitioner, the scope of what constitutes a “medical device” has been significantly broadened by the Central government through a notification dated February 11, 2020, issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Story continues below this ad

The petition asserted that the effect of the 2020 notification was to transform the earlier “limited and item-specific definition” of medical devices into “a comprehensive, purpose-based classification aligned with public-health objectives”.

The plea stated that the notification extended regulatory oversight to “any instrument, apparatus, appliance, implant, material, software or accessory” intended for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring or alleviation of disease, even if it functions through non-pharmacological or mechanical means.

Arguing that air purifiers fall squarely within this expanded definition, the petitioner contended that devices equipped with High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters “demonstrably remove fine particulate matter, allergens, bioaerosols and toxic airborne pollutants,” reducing exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 levels known to cause asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular illnesses.

The petition also stated that air purifiers perform a “preventive function by mechanically filtering and removing hazardous particulate matter,” and further contribute to monitoring through integrated air-quality sensors that enable early detection of harmful fluctuations.

Story continues below this ad

“As their intended and primary purpose is the prevention and alleviation of disease-causing exposures and the safeguarding of respiratory health, air-purifiers squarely fall within the statutory sweep of a ‘medical device’,” the plea claims.

The PIL strongly criticised the differential tax treatment accorded to air purifiers as compared to other medical devices stating that while most medical devices have been rationalised to attract five per cent GST, air purifiers continue to be taxed at 18 per cent, treating them as non-essential household appliances despite performing identical preventive functions.

“There exists no rational, scientific or intelligible basis to classify medical devices at 5% GST while simultaneously taxing air-purifiers at 18%,” the petitioner submits, calling the classification violative of the constitutional test of intelligible differentia.

Relying on advisories issued by the World Health Organization (WHO-SEARO) and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under the ‘National Programme on Climate Change and Human Health‘, the petition highlights that air purifiers are officially recognised as necessary protective devices during “Poor to Severe+” air quality conditions, particularly for vulnerable populations.

Story continues below this ad

The plea further stated that imposing the highest GST slab on air purifiers during an ongoing air pollution crisis makes them financially inaccessible and infringes the fundamental right to life and clean air under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The continued levy of the maximum rate operates to deny effective access to a life-protective device,” the petition said, adding that Delhi-NCR is facing “persistent and severe degradation of air quality” amounting to a grave public-health emergency.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement