The delicate balance of power between India's judiciary, legislature, and executive has come into sharp focus once again. This follows a recent intervention by the Delhi High Court concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on air purifiers, a move that has ignited a debate on the boundaries of judicial authority.
The Court's Directive and the Core Concern
Last week, the Delhi High Court took up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a reduction in the GST rate on air purifiers and HEPA filters from the current 18% to 5%. The court questioned why these items could not be classified as "medical devices" to attract the lower 5% tax slab. Going a step further, the bench reportedly urged the GST Council to convene a meeting at the earliest, potentially a virtual one, to examine this issue.
While the intent behind the court's query is rooted in addressing the severe public health emergency caused by air pollution, the method has raised constitutional red flags. The Centre has pointed out that by entertaining such a petition, the court risks short-circuiting the established legislative process.
Why GST Rates Are Not a Judicial Domain
The authority to decide GST rates and slabs rests exclusively with the GST Council. This constitutional body comprises representatives from both the Centre and all states. Crucially, its decisions require a three-fourths majority, ensuring a federal consensus. Therefore, a change in the tax rate on any product, including air purifiers, cannot be mandated by the Centre alone, the states alone, and certainly not by the courts.
This incident is not isolated. There have been other occasions where Indian courts have appeared to overstep into the domains of the legislature or executive, a phenomenon often termed judicial overreach. The Supreme Court itself has previously articulated concerns about maintaining the separation of powers, a fundamental feature of the Constitution's basic structure.
The Larger Picture: Pollution and Policy
There is no disputing the urgency of India's air pollution crisis. The Supreme Court has consistently pushed the executive to accelerate environmental reforms, a role widely acknowledged as pivotal. In this context, the court's recent decision to revisit the Aravalli protection case is seen as a welcome step.
However, experts argue that while making air purifiers more affordable through tax cuts could improve access, it is not a comprehensive solution. The state cannot abdicate its primary responsibility by merely lowering taxes and placing the onus on individuals to clean the air in their private spaces. Tackling air pollution demands a carefully thought-through, long-term strategy from the government, addressing the problem at its source.
The Delhi High Court's intervention underscores the judiciary's legitimate role in holding the executive accountable on issues of public health. Yet, it also serves as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, every institution must operate within its designated sphere. The court's role is to clean up governance, not to fix tax rates.
