The Central Government has opposed before the Delhi High Court a public interest litigation (PIL) to declare air-purifiers as “medical devices” and for removing imposition of 18% GST on them.

Policy Concerns

Sitting at the crossroads of judicial intervention, constitutional boundaries, executive discretion, and the crisis of toxic air pollution in Delhi, the Public Interest Litigation before the Delhi High Court foregrounds a range of critical policy concerns that warrant reflection—not only for the residents of Delhi, but for the country at large.

Foremost among these concerns is affordability and equity. A higher GST on air purifiers directly translates into higher consumer prices, effectively classifying them as “luxury” items beyond the financial reach of a large section of households. This, in turn, undermines public health protection at a time when Delhi continues to grapple with dangerously high levels of air pollution. The fundamental question that arises, therefore, is one of access to safe air—whether protection from toxic pollution should be contingent on purchasing power.

A second, equally significant concern emerges from the government’s opposition to judicial intervention in matters of GST on air purifiers. At a time when rights as basic as the right to clean air, a healthy environment, and ultimately the right to life are severely compromised by persistent smog, the insistence on a rigid application of separation of powers invites scrutiny. When public health is demonstrably at risk and executive action remains limited or delayed, the question arises whether fiscal policymaking can—or should—remain entirely insulated from judicial oversight in such exceptional circumstances.

Beyond the courtroom, the issue also exposes broader deficiencies in pollution control policies and governance. It raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Is clean air a privilege reserved for a few? Government offices are equipped with air purifiers funded by public resources, yet the common citizen—who must step out daily and breathe the same toxic air—is left to fend for themselves. This disparity highlights the uneven distribution of protection from environmental harm and underscores the need for a more inclusive and rights-based approach to environmental and fiscal policymaking.