Is breathing luxury? Experts weigh in on the legal battle over 18% GST on air purifiers and right to life

Constitutional tug-of-war: Separation of powers

The Central Government’s primary defense is the “Doctrine of Separation of Powers.” They argue that tax rates are a matter of policy, reserved for the executive and the GST Council, and that judicial interference would be a breach of constitutional boundaries.

“The Centre’s argument is directionally correct but overstated,” said Patel. While he agrees that courts cannot simply rewrite tax policy or fix rates, he emphasises that constitutional courts are not barred from examining whether a rate is “manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory.”

Chilana echoed this sentiment, noting that while the Centre is broadly correct about fiscal restraint, “separation of powers does not mean complete immunity from constitutional scrutiny.” He suggested that when a tax policy impacts fundamental rights—specifically the Article 21 Right to Life—the court has a duty to ensure the State has applied its mind to the crisis.

The ‘drug’ dilemma: Can a machine be medicine?

The technical heart of the petition lies in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. If an air purifier is legally a “medical device,” it moves into a different tax bracket.

“This is a purely classification-related dispute,” explained Bhatia. He points out that the government technically has the power to qualify air purifiers as a “drug” or “medical device” under existing rules if they are intended for the prevention or treatment of disease.

However, the legal threshold is high. Kumar clarified that a product only qualifies as a medical device if it is intended for “diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, or treatment of disease, as certified by a regulator.” Currently, air purifiers are treated as consumer appliances for “general environmental improvement.”

Even if the health regulator (CDSCO) were to notify them as medical devices, it doesn’t guarantee a tax cut. “GST operates under a distinct tariff-based regime,” Kumar noted. “Regulatory status is persuasive, not determinative.”

Shankar, on the other hand, explained that air purifiers are not classified as medical devices under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act now.

“Section 3(b) defines ‘drug’ broadly. It includes medicines for disease treatment or prevention. It covers substances affecting body function. It includes notified devices for health purposes. The MDR 2017 applies to certain items. Air purifiers could fit if for respiratory issues. But CDSCO has not notified them. They fall under HSN 8421 as purifying machinery. No D&C Act notification includes them,” he said.

The ‘floodgates’ concern

One of the most significant warnings from the legal community is the potential for a “domino effect.” If the court orders a tax cut for air purifiers today, what stops water filter manufacturers or organic food producers from demanding the same tomorrow?

“A ruling directing a reduction would open the floodgates for sector-specific PILs,” warned Patel. He argues it could undermine the “uniformity and predictability” of the GST system, which relies on a collective federal consensus through the GST Council rather than “judicial micro-management.”

Chilana added that a direct court-ordered rate cut would be “unusual.” Instead, he predicts a more balanced outcome: the court might not fix the rate itself but could “nudge” the GST Council to reconsider the device as an essential life-saving product.

Monopoly myth v. regulatory reality

The Centre has raised a curious defense: reclassifying air purifiers as medical devices might actually hurt the public by creating “monopolistic conditions”.

How? Because medical devices are subject to the Medical Device Rules (MDR) 2017. Shanker explained that makers would need specific licenses (like MD-5 or MD-15) and meet stringent quality standards.

“These bars could exclude unlicensed players and favour established firms. It creates oligopolies, not full monopolies. Regulation ensures safety and efficacy. This is key for health devices in pollution crises. It prevents substandard products. New entrants can get licenses. MDR allows loan licenses or agents. The government can issue transitional rules. Past reclassifications show markets adapt. No monopolies form. Transparent licensing reduces favouritism. Public health under Article 21 may outweigh disruptions. Courts should review monopoly risk evidence,” he said.

Patel agreed that the concern isn’t “illusory.” The compliance and import-control barriers could push out smaller manufacturers, potentially raising prices despite a lower tax rate. However, Bhatia viewed this concern as “unrealistic,” suggesting that while regulatory conditions would apply, it wouldn’t necessarily restrict market access for those willing to meet safety standards.

Power of GST Council

Every expert pointed to one entity as the ultimate arbiter: The GST Council. Established under Article 279A, it is a unique body of cooperative federalism where the Centre and States must agree on rates.

“The Council adopts a very holistic approach,” said Bhatia. It balances revenue needs against public interest. While a court can ask the Council to “take a reasoned decision” within a timeframe, it cannot legally compel them to adopt a specific percentage.

Shanker highlighted that the Council has shown flexibility before—for instance, adjusting rates for essential items during the COVID-19 pandemic. The argument here is that the Delhi pollution crisis is a similar emergency.

Article 21: Is health more important than revenue?

The most powerful weapon in the petitioner’s arsenal is Article 21—the Right to Life. In cities where the Air Quality Index (AQI) frequently hits “severe” levels, clean air isn’t a luxury; it’s a biological necessity.

“There is strong constitutional force in this argument,” said Chilana. “While revenue considerations are legitimate, they cannot override the State’s duty to protect life and health.”

Kumar offered a more nuanced view, suggesting that while the State has a duty to mitigate health risks, it has many tools at its disposal—like targeted subsidies or public health programs—that don’t involve “unsettling the GST framework.”

Declaring public health “unquestionably” a core component of the right to life under Article 21, he said that the State carries a constitutional obligation to adopt policies that mitigate serious health risks, particularly in severely polluted regions such as Delhi.

“That said, prioritising public health does not necessarily mandate judicially driven tax reductions; the government retains a range of policy instruments, such as targeted subsidies, regulatory interventions, and public health programmes, to address affordability and access without unsettling the GST framework. A balanced approach that integrates health imperatives within sound fiscal governance is therefore institutionally more sustainable,” Kumar added.

Way forward

The air purifier debate is more than a tax dispute; it is a test of how India’s legal system responds to an environmental catastrophe. While the “Separation of Powers” remains a sturdy shield for the government, the “Right to Life” is an equally sharp sword for the people.

According to Chilana, if the PIL fails, the issue does not end there.

“The most effective route would be a data-backed representation to the GST Council, supported by public health evidence, pollution data, and impact studies. State governments affected by severe pollution can also raise the issue within the Council,” he said.

Patel argued that though public health considerations are compelling, they must operate within statutory structures.

“Courts cannot convert perceived policy desirability into enforceable tax mandates; the appropriate response lies in targeted subsidies, procurement programmes or regulatory incentives rather than ad hoc tax reclassification,” Patel noted.

Whether that structure will bend to the weight of Delhi’s toxic air remains to be seen. For now, the millions of citizens breathing through filters are left waiting for a decision that could make the “right to breathe” just a little more affordable.