Context

• For the last seven years, since its enactment, disabled individuals who rely upon prosthetic limbs, Braillers and wheelchairs must compulsorily pay an additional five per cent GST on these essential mobility aids.
• The GST law was enacted in 2017 to simplify and consolidate India’s tax regime but because of this law injustice being faced by millions of disabled Indians. 
• Therefore, it is important to delve into the consequences of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in India and its discriminatory impact on disabled individuals.

Impact of GST on Disabled Individuals and Broader Implications

• Financial Burden on Essential Mobility Aids
  • Disabled individuals often rely on various mobility aids, such as prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs, and Braillers, to navigate their daily lives.
  • Under the current GST regime, these essential items are subject to a five percent tax.
  • For individuals already facing numerous challenges, this additional financial burden can be overwhelming.
  • For example, if a wheelchair user purchasing a motorised wheelchair for Rs 1 lakh, the five percent GST on this purchase amounts to an additional Rs 5,000.
  • If the wheelchair is expected to last for 500 kilometres, the effective tax burden per kilometre of mobility is Rs 10.
  • This calculation starkly shows the inequity: an able-bodied individual incurs no such tax for walking.
  • Similarly, blind individuals who use Braille publications must absorb the additional cost of the GST imposed on these items, solely due to their disability.
• Discriminatory Nature of the Tax
  • It effectively penalises individuals for their disability by imposing a financial burden on the very tools they need to achieve a semblance of normalcy and independence.
  • Able-bodied individuals do not face similar taxes for engaging in everyday activities such as walking or reading.
  • Thus, the GST regime creates a clear disparity between disabled and non-disabled individuals, exacerbating the challenges faced by the former.
  • This discrimination is particularly egregious considering the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
• Psychological and Social Implications
  • Beyond the financial strain, the GST on disability aids has profound psychological and social implications.
  • By imposing an additional cost on essential mobility and learning tools, the tax sends a message of marginalisation and inferiority to disabled individuals.
  • It undermines their sense of dignity and self-worth, perpetuating negative stereotypes and social stigma associated with disability.
  • This discriminatory tax policy contradicts the spirit of empowerment and inclusion and hampers the efforts of disabled individuals to integrate fully into society, pursue education, and participate in economic activities.
  • The message conveyed by such a tax is one of exclusion rather than inclusion, reinforcing barriers rather than breaking them down.

An Analysis of the GST Based on the Constitutional Principles

• Fundamental Right to Equality (Article 14)
  • Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
  • The GST on disability aids creates an unreasonable classification, placing disabled individuals at a disadvantage solely because of their condition.
  • This tax fails the test of reasonableness and equality as it imposes an undue burden on a vulnerable section of society.
• Fundamental Right to Non-Discrimination (Article 15)
  • Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including place of birth, which can be interpreted to include conditions of disability.
  • The tax on disability aids directly contravenes this provision by discriminating against individuals based on their physical abilities.
  • The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, further reinforces this principle by prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals.
• Indirect Discrimination and Judicial Interpretation
  • Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, in a landmark judgment in 2021 (Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India), emphasised the need to recognize indirect discrimination.
  • This principle is highly relevant to the GST on disability aids and even if the tax is not discriminatory on its face, its impact disproportionately burdens disabled individuals, constituting indirect discrimination.

The Judiciary's Stance on Similar Issues and their Implications for the Current GST Regime on Disability Aids

• Sakal Papers Case (1961)
  • In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India struck down government-imposed restrictions on newspaper advertising.
  • The government had introduced a regulation that limited the number of advertisements a newspaper could carry, ostensibly to promote smaller newspapers.
  • However, the SC ruled that this regulation violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • The Court noted that by restricting advertising revenue, the regulation indirectly impacted the circulation of newspapers and thereby curtailed the dissemination of information, a core component of the freedom of speech and expression.
  • This judgment established the principle that any government action indirectly impacting fundamental rights must be scrutinized and can be struck down if found unreasonable.
• Indian Express Case (1984)
  • In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1984), the SC addressed the issue of customs duty imposed on newsprint.
  • The government argued that the duty was a revenue measure, but the Court saw it differently.
  • It recognised that imposing such a duty would increase the cost of newsprint, thereby increasing the cost of newspapers.
  • This, in turn, would affect the public’s access to information and infringe upon the right to freedom of speech and expression.
  • The Court struck down the duty, emphasising that any tax or financial burden that indirectly affects the circulation of newspapers and the dissemination of information is unconstitutional.
  • The ruling reinforced the idea that policies with indirect consequences on fundamental rights require stringent scrutiny and justification.
• Aashirwad Films Case (2007)
  • It involved a discriminatory tax levied on non-Telugu movies screened in Andhra Pradesh.
  • The SC found this tax to be unconstitutional, terming it "socially divisive" and a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • The Court held that the tax was discriminatory as it imposed an unfair burden on non-Telugu films and, by extension, on the audience who wished to view them.
  • The judgment highlighted that any form of taxation or regulation that creates an unreasonable distinction between different classes of people or entities must be invalidated.

Way Forward: Reform for Dignity and Empowerment

• Even though the GST revenue from disability aids is minimal compared to the total, the issue is one of dignity.
• Taxing disabled individuals for basic activities like movement and reading sends a message of inferiority rather than empowerment.
• In a 2021 landmark judgment on Article 15 (Lt. Col. Nitisha), the SC emphasised the need for recognising indirect discrimination, further supporting the argument against this discriminatory tax.

Conclusion

• The current GST regime in India, which imposes a five percent tax on essential disability aids, is a manifest injustice that penalises disabled individuals for their condition.
• This policy not only violates constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination but also perpetuates negative stereotypes and undermines the dignity of disabled individuals.
• It is imperative that this tax regime be reformed to ensure that disabled individuals are not unfairly burdened and are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.