Review: Supreme Court Rules that Minimum Wages Must Reflect Nature of Work, Not Just Educational Qualification in a Motor Accident Compensation Case
In this edition of the court judgments review, we look at the Bombay HC’s judgments that bail cannot be given to rape accused based on upcoming marriage, that Maharashtra government liable to pay ₹1 lakh for illegal arrest of businessman, its interim relief granted to Asha Bhosle against AI misuse of celebrity voice, Supreme Court’s order that minimum wages must reflect nature of work, not just educational qualification in motor accident compensation case, among others.
Bombay High Court: Bail Cannot be given to Rape Accused Based on Upcoming Marriage
In The State of Maharashtra vs. Aakash Sandhi Bindu, the Bombay High Court set aside a Sessions Court order that had granted bail to a rape accused merely because his marriage was scheduled soon.
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale heard the State’s plea to cancel the 24 February 2025 bail order passed by the Dindoshi Sessions Court. The case involved a gang rape registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The prosecution argued that the trial court ignored critical evidence, including medical findings of head injuries, witness testimonies, and recovery of a mobile phone containing indecent photos of the victim from a co-accused. Instead, the Sessions Court had granted bail based on the accused’s upcoming marriage.
The High Court deemed this reasoning “deeply troubling” and emphasised that marriage cannot mitigate serious crimes like gang rape. Justice Gokhale noted that the trial court overlooked material evidence and the gravity of the offence, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years.
Consequently, the bail was cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender within two days. The Court highlighted that granting bail without due consideration of evidence undermines public trust in the justice system.
Bombay High Court: Maharashtra Govt Liable to Pay ₹1 Lakh for Illegal Arrest of Businessman
In Vasantha Perampally Nayak vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court declared the arrest of a Karnataka-based businessman illegal and without lawful authority. The Court directed the Maharashtra government to pay ₹1 lakh compensation and conduct a departmental enquiry against the responsible police officers.
A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil found that officers from Bandra Police Station deliberately misused their power by adding Section 409 IPC, a non-bailable offence punishable with life imprisonment. Their superiors had only authorised registration under Sections 406, 420, 465, and 477A IPC, which carry a maximum punishment of seven years. By invoking Section 409, the officers bypassed Section 41A CrPC, which mandates prior notice for arrests in offences punishable up to seven years.
As a result, Nayak was detained for 20 days despite records showing he had retired from the disputed partnership in 2013. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) and Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994), the Bench stressed that arrests should not be made routinely, warning that “arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom, and casts scars forever.”
The Court ordered the State to pay ₹1 lakh within six weeks and directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to initiate an enquiry within eight weeks, ensuring recovery of the amount from the erring officers. Compliance will be reviewed on 4 December 2025.
Bombay High Court: AI Misuse of Celebrity Voice Banned, Relief Granted to Asha Bhosle
In Asha Bhosle vs. Mayk Inc., the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to legendary singer Asha Bhosle, holding that the unauthorised cloning of a celebrity’s voice using AI tools violates personality and moral rights.
Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that Asha Bhosle’s voice, name, image, and likeness are protectable, and using them for commercial gain without consent is unlawful. The Court noted that certain websites and AI platforms were offering tools to replicate Bhosle’s voice, allowing users to make her “sing” songs she never performed. Additionally, her image and caricatures were sold online through platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and private websites, without permission.
The Court found prima facie that Defendants 1, 2, and 5 (AI platforms and merchandise sellers) were exploiting Bhosle’s identity without authorisation. They were restrained from using her voice, likeness, or persona in any form. Amazon, Flipkart, and Google (YouTube) were also directed to remove infringing content and share details of the responsible parties.
Citing Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Others (2024) and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. Aishwaryaworld.com (2025), the Court reaffirmed that AI-generated misuse of celebrity traits violates their moral and publicity rights. The matter will be heard further on 13 October 2025.
Supreme Court: Minimum Wages Must Reflect Nature of Work, Not Just Educational Qualification
In Sharad Singh (Dead) Through LR vs. H.D. Narang & Anr., the Supreme Court held that minimum wages cannot be determined solely based on a person’s educational qualifications, but must also factor in the nature of work the individual would likely perform.
The case involved a 20-year-old B.Com student and aspiring Chartered Accountant who became paraplegic after a road accident in 2001. The victim, represented by his mother after his death, challenged the compensation awarded by the High Court, arguing that his potential earnings were undervalued.
The Tribunal and High Court had pegged his monthly income at ₹3,352, based on the minimum wage for a skilled worker. The Supreme Court observed that this figure did not reflect the potential income of a commerce graduate entering a professional career. The Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria adjusted his income to ₹5,000 per month and added 40% for future prospects, in line with the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others ruling.
The Court enhanced total compensation to ₹40.34 lakh: ₹15.12 lakh for loss of income, ₹14 lakh under conventional heads, and ₹11.22 lakh for medical expenses. The insurance company was also directed to pay ₹20 lakh for future medical costs, interest-free if paid within four months; otherwise, 9% annual interest applies. The judgment underscores that minimum wages must account for the nature and scope of work, not just education.
Chandigarh Consumer Commission: Healing Hospital Ordered to Pay ₹50 Lakh for Medical Negligence Leading to Finger Amputation
In Gurmeet Kaur vs. Healing Hospital and Institute of Paramedical Sciences, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, ordered Healing Hospital and three doctors to pay ₹50 lakh compensation to Gurmeet Kaur. Four of her fingers were amputated due to medical negligence, leaving her 85% permanently disabled in her left hand.
Kaur was admitted in November 2020 for stomach and back pain and treated for a gastrointestinal infection. An IV cannula was inserted into her left hand, which soon became swollen and painful. Despite clear signs of distress, the attending doctors failed to remove the cannula. Her condition deteriorated, with her hand turning blue and numb. Emergency surgery was attempted but abandoned, and she was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, with an open wound. Doctors there had to amputate four fingers due to gangrene caused by vascular compromise.
Presided over by Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), the Commission found the hospital and doctors guilty of deficiency in service and negligence. It highlighted their failure to monitor and respond to vascular damage, violating standard IV protocols. Being left-handed, Kaur’s functional loss severely impacted her independence, causing physical pain and mental trauma.
Relying on medical records, photographs, and PGIMER’s disability certificate, the Commission held the hospital accountable. The hospital’s decision to waive ambulance and remaining bills implied an acknowledgement of fault. Healing Hospital, Dr Sandeep Pal, Dr J.P. Singhvi, and Dr Maninder Kaur Bedi were directed to pay compensation within 45 days, with 9% annual interest applicable if delayed.
