GST Council Alone Can Decide Tax Rates on Air Purifiers; Judicial Directions Unconstitutional, Argues Centre: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has heard the Central government’s strong objections to a Public Interest Litigation seeking to classify air purifiers as medical devices and reduce their Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 18 per cent to 5 per cent, with the Government urging that judicial directions in the matter would violate the constitutional scheme governing tax rates. The matter was taken up on 8 January 2026 before a Division Bench and is now set for further hearing.

In a counter-affidavit filed on 4 January 2026, the Union of India contended that any judicial intervention directing a GST cut on air purifiers or compelling the GST Council to meet or adopt specific outcomes would be unconstitutional and impermissible, as the Constitution expressly entrusts tax-rate decisions to the GST Council under Article 279A. It argued that the determination of tax rates requires a consultative, cooperative federalism process involving the Union and States, balancing diverse fiscal interests, and that the judiciary must not “step into the shoes of the GST Council” and usurp functions constitutionally allocated to that body.

The Government further submitted that any attempt to direct the GST Council to consider or adopt a particular outcome would “amount to the Hon’ble Court exercising functions that the Constitution has consciously and exclusively entrusted to the GST Council,” thereby violating the doctrine of separation of powers and undermining the GST framework. It was emphasised that fixing or modifying GST rates is a fiscal and economic policy decision, and not a judicial function.

Addressing the maintainability of the petition, the Government labelled the PIL as a “colourable and motivated attempt” to secure regulatory reclassification of air purifiers under the guise of public interest. It argued that classifying air purifiers as medical devices would subject their import, manufacture, sale, and distribution to stringent regulatory controls under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Medical Device Rules, 2017, potentially restricting accessibility and favouring a limited class of regulated entities. This, the Government warned, could lead to monopolistic conditions rather than enhanced public access.

The litigation arises from a petition filed by Advocate Kapil Madan, who contends that air purifiers should not be treated as luxury items, particularly in light of acute air pollution in Delhi and other urban areas, and that their classification as medical devices would rationalise the GST regime and make them more affordable for citizens coping with hazardous air quality. Earlier hearings saw the Court acknowledge the public health concerns raised, and at a hearing in December 2025, the High Court had remarked that an urgent GST Council meeting should be convened to consider the issue. However, the Government’s present stand highlights that such convening or any directive to alter GST rates must emanate from the Council itself and not through judicial fiat.

During arguments, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, representing the Union, maintained that GST policy decisions rest exclusively with the GST Council and cannot be scuttled by a writ petition. He sought time for a detailed counter-affidavit, cautioning that entertaining such petitions could open a “Pandora’s Box” of similar demands seeking judicial intervention in fiscal policy.

The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on 9 January 2026 and is expected to consider both constitutional and policy dimensions, including the division of powers between the judiciary, the GST Council, and the executive on matters of fiscal governance.

Case Details:
Case Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors.
Nature of Proceedings: Public Interest Litigation under Articles 226/32
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Division Bench (Justices Vikas Mahajan and Vinod Kumar)
Date: 08 January 2026

Advocates Appearing:
For the Petitioner: Kapil Madan
For the Respondent (Union of India): Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman