Advocate Kapil Madan, appearing as party-in-person in the PIL, has submitted in the petition that an air purifier can be classified as a medical device as per a February 11, 2020 notification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Opposing the Delhi High Court’s intervention in a PIL seeking GST reduction on air purifiers from 18% to 5% by classifying them as medical devices, the Centre said Friday that any judicial direction will amount to the court stepping into the legislative domain and violating the Constitution’s basic structure of separation of powers.
Stating that entertaining the petition will “open a Pandora’s box” and the government is “scared from the constitutional perspective”, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, appearing for the Centre, said there is already a legislative process involved in dealing with recommendations made in Parliamentary standing committee reports as well as how GST Council meetings deliberate on proposals. “How can this process be scuttled through a court process?” he said.
Advocate Kapil Madan, appearing as party-in-person in the PIL, has submitted in the petition that an air purifier can be classified as a medical device as per a February 11, 2020 notification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Opposing the PIL and questioning the motive, the ASG said, “This is not a PIL at all… GST is only a ruse. This will open a Pandora’s box… There is a process. We will go through the process… filing a petition and getting a mandamus (a court order) issued asking the GST Council to say this or that…, we are scared from the constitutional perspective, it is the doctrine of separation of powers… We can’t give a committed date (on the GST Council meeting) (but) we certainly see an agenda (by the petitioner), we are very, very concerned.”
“If an air purifier… has to be declared a medical device… so much complication in the licensing procedure. It is extremely regulated… There is a process involved. How can this process be scuttled through a court process? I see a lot of things calculated in this petition, I may be wrong or right,” he said.
To the High Court’s suggestion on December 24 that the Centre should consider if a virtual meeting of the Council can be called given the air pollution situation in Delhi and its surrounding areas, Venkataraman made it clear that it will not be possible.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, who was on bench with Justice Vinod Kumar, said, “The court’s only concern was, as I can see from the order (of December 24) that having regard to the pollution situation in Delhi and surrounding areas, why the GST should not be reduced from 18 to 5%. Whatever way you want, you do it, find a way out for that. The price range for air purifiers is starting from Rs 10,000-12,000 and goes up to Rs 60,000. It is beyond the reach of a common man. Why not bring it down to a reasonable level where a common man can also afford it?… What is the difficulty in the GST Council meeting? They can take a call.”
Story continues below this ad
The ASG said the GST Council involves Finance Ministers from across the nation and “each one perceives it very differently.”
“We (Union Ministry of Finance) had an urgent meeting yesterday. We have the following concerns with this petition: it is a loaded petition, we want to know who is behind this petition. This is not a PIL at all. Please come to the prayers, it has nothing to do with GST, GST is only a ruse… (on prayer seeking classification of air purifier as a medical device) Health Ministry is not even a party to the petition. Who is he (petitioner) trying to finish, we don’t know. Somebody wants a monopoly in air purifiers, we don’t know. We are really concerned… It is a convoluted, loaded petition.”
Warning that any court direction in this regard may breach the separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary, the ASG said, “Separation of powers is a basic structure…. The report (by the Parliamentary standing committee of science and technology) has been sent to the Environment Ministry, they will in turn ask for an action taken report from the Department of Revenue. If required, the Department of Revenue will lead evidence.”
The bench permitted the Centre to file a counter-affidavit and also allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder to it by January 9, the next date of hearing.
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
