New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday, December 26, 2025, sought a detailed response from the Central Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a significant reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on air purifiers. The plea argues that amidst the hazardous "pollution emergency" in the national capital, air purifiers have transitioned from being luxury items to essential medical necessities.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Vikas Mahajan and Justice Vinod Kumar granted the Centre ten days to file its reply and scheduled the next hearing for January 9, 2026.

Currently, air purifiers attract a GST rate of 18%, placing them in the same tax bracket as many luxury electronic appliances. The petitioner, advocate Kapil Madan, has urged the Court to direct the Centre to reclassify these devices as "medical devices," which would bring them under the lower 5% GST slab.

The petition highlights a grim reality: for millions of residents in Delhi-NCR, breathing clean air has become a financial challenge. By taxing these devices at 18%, the government is effectively making "breathable air" unaffordable for the middle and lower-income segments of society.

During the preliminary hearings, the Court expressed deep concern over the health implications of the ongoing pollution crisis. In a previous session on December 24, a bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made a poignant observation:

"As we speak, we all breathe. You know how many times we breathe in a day—at least 21,000 times. Just calculate the harm you are doing to your lungs just by breathing 21,000 times a day, and that’s involuntary."

The Court remarked that if the State is unable to provide its citizens with clean outdoor air—a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution—the least it can do is make the tools for indoor protection more affordable.

Representing the Union Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman informed the Court that any change in GST rates is a policy matter that must be decided by the GST Council.

A key point of contention during Friday’s hearing was the feasibility of an urgent meeting. The Court had earlier suggested that the GST Council should meet at the earliest, even via video conferencing, to address this "public health emergency." However, the Centre’s counsel submitted that:

GST Council meetings are traditionally held in physical mode.
Convening a pan-India body through video conferencing for such a decision is currently not considered feasible by the authorities.

The ASG sought time to file a comprehensive affidavit explaining the government's position and the technicalities involved in reclassifying the products.

The PIL, argued by Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, raises several critical points:

Medical Device Classification: A 2020 government notification already classifies various health-related equipment under the 5% slab. The plea argues air purifiers serve a "physiological-support function" similar to medical equipment by mitigating life-threatening pollutants.
Parliamentary Backing: The Court noted that a Parliamentary Standing Committee report on Climate Change had already recommended that the government should either abolish or significantly lower the GST on air purifiers and HEPA filters to assist the public.
Constitutional Violation: The petitioner contends that the high tax burden violates the "Right to Life" by creating a financial barrier to health during a documented environmental crisis.

The outcome of Kapil Madan v. Union of India could set a major precedent for how the government taxes "protective equipment" during environmental disasters. While the government views GST as a standard revenue tool, the court's focus remains on the "right to breathe."

With the AQI in Delhi frequently hitting the 'Severe' and 'Hazardous' categories, the legal question is simple: Should the state profit from a citizen's attempt to protect their lungs from a disaster the state has failed to control?

The legal community and the general public now look toward the January 9 hearing, where the Centre is expected to clarify if it will prioritize revenue or public health by slashing taxes on the "medical necessity" that is the air purifier.

Case Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan and Justice Vinod Kumar

Next Hearing: January 9, 2026