The Delhi High Court took up a public interest litigation raising pressing concerns about deteriorating air quality in the National Capital Region and seeking judicial directions aimed at compelling coordinated action by the Government of India, the GST Council, and other authorities on regulatory and fiscal measures to mitigate pollution. The petition underscored the severity of air pollution in Delhi and adjoining regions, particularly during certain months when particulate matter and other pollutants reach hazardous levels, posing significant health risks to the public at large, especially children, the elderly, and persons with respiratory ailments. The petitioner contended that despite repeated reports, studies, and judicial pronouncements identifying the grave impacts of air pollution and the need for comprehensive governance responses, effective measures had not been implemented in a uniform and sustained manner across jurisdictions that contribute to the pollution burden.
At the heart of the PIL was a plea for the Court to issue directions to the Finance Ministry, the GST Council, and other regulatory bodies to consider the reduction or waiver of the Goods and Services Tax on air purifiers, particularly high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, related equipment, and other pollution control devices that could help individuals and institutions mitigate the adverse health effects of polluted air. The petitioner argued that the cost of air purifiers and allied technologies remains prohibitive for many sections of society due to tax burdens, and that lowering or rationalising the applicable GST rates would incentivise wider adoption of such devices, thereby assisting vulnerable populations in protecting their health amidst poor air quality. The plea sought equitable access to technological means of exposure reduction, contending that failure to make essential pollution-mitigating devices more affordable exacerbates social inequities when environmental hazards impact underserved communities most acutely.
The PIL further drew attention to the structural and policy dimensions of air pollution governance. It noted that air quality management in the region is a multi-layered challenge requiring collaboration across municipal, state, and central agencies, as well as integration of regulatory, fiscal, technological, and behavioural interventions. The petitioner submitted that while certain steps, such as restrictions on industrial emissions, vehicular restrictions, and stubble burning controls, have been implemented during peak pollution periods, a more holistic and long-term strategy underpinned by policy coherence and fiscal incentives was necessary. It was contended that the GST Council is uniquely positioned to rationalise tax rates on pollution-control equipment and technologies, aligning fiscal policy with environmental objectives, and that judicial oversight was needed to ensure that fiscal measures be considered as part of the broader toolkit to combat air pollution.
During the hearing, the Court balanced the petitioner’s concerns with the broader policy prerogatives of the executive and legislative bodies. The bench acknowledged the significance of air pollution as a public health and environmental crisis that demands urgent and sustained attention, noting the documented adverse effects of poor air quality on respiratory and cardiovascular health, cognitive development in children, and overall mortality. The Court emphasised that judicial institutions must be mindful of their role in prompting governance action on matters of deep public importance, and that environmental protection is a constitutional obligation rooted in the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It recognised that air quality management engages fundamental rights and state responsibilities, and that litigative intervention can play a catalytic role in drawing focus to systemic inadequacies.
However, the Court also noted that fiscal policy, including the imposition and structuring of GST rates, falls within the exclusive domain of the GST Council, finance ministries, and elected legislatures. The bench indicated that judicial direction on matters of taxation or revenue might encroach on legislative and executive functions, which are entrusted to specialised bodies accountable to democratic processes. The judges stressed the importance of respecting the separation of powers while still ensuring that environmental imperatives are addressed through appropriate channels. The Court expressed understanding of the petitioner’s request for reduced GST on air purifiers but observed that any change in tax rates or exemptions must be deliberated within the constitutional framework that governs fiscal decision-making, particularly by the GST Council comprising representatives of the Union and the States.
In reconciling these considerations, the High Court emphasised that judicial scrutiny may be directed at ensuring that environmental concerns receive due consideration in relevant policy forums but refrained from issuing direct mandates on GST rates. Instead, the Court highlighted the need for the respondents to engage constructively with the substantive issues raised in the petition and to articulate clear positions on how fiscal instruments, regulatory measures, and multi-sectoral strategies could be harnessed to address air pollution. The bench underlined that meaningful responses from the authorities would inform subsequent judicial evaluation and might lead to further directions if statutory obligations or constitutional guarantees were found to be inadequately upheld.
The respondents, including counsel representing the Central Government and agencies implicated in air quality management, were directed to file affidavits or responses outlining the steps taken to address the concerns elaborated in the PIL, including any engagement with the GST Council on tax rationalisation for pollution control technologies, existing incentives for clean technology adoption, and integration of fiscal and regulatory mechanisms in national and regional air quality action plans. The authorities were also asked to explain the extent to which fiscal policy instruments such as tax rates, subsidies, or exemptions have been deployed in environmental governance and whether institutional mechanisms exist for inter-ministerial coordination on such issues.
The High Court’s approach reflects a nuanced understanding of the interplay between environmental rights, policy expertise, and constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and policy-making bodies. It underscored that while courts can highlight systemic gaps and catalyse responsive action, they must also ensure that policy decisions—particularly those involving taxation and revenue—remain anchored in institutional competence and democratic accountability. The bench refrained from immediate interim relief directly impacting GST rates but left open the possibility of further judicial intervention based on the quality and substance of the responses furnished by the respondents.
The case illustrates the evolving jurisprudence on environmental governance in India, where judicial forums increasingly engage with complex policy domains such as air quality management, climate change, and sustainable development. The PIL’s invocation of fiscal instruments as a lever to advance environmental objectives signals an expansion of legal strategies to address transboundary and multi-factorial pollution challenges. The High Court’s handling of the petition demonstrates its willingness to foreground environmental health concerns while respecting the functional domains of fiscal authorities.
As the matter proceeds, it is anticipated that the authorities will present detailed accounts of current and planned measures spanning regulatory, technological, and fiscal spectra, and that the Court will evaluate these in the context of constitutional duties to protect life and environment. The petition raises broader questions about the alignment of economic policy with environmental justice, the role of fiscal incentives in promoting public health interventions, and the mechanisms through which courts, legislatures, and executive bodies can collaboratively address persistent environmental crises. The High Court’s interim observations and directions mark an important step in this ongoing legal and policy discourse, underscoring that sustainable solutions to air pollution require integrated approaches that draw upon law, science, governance, and citizen engagement.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.