The Supreme Court of India today dubbed the long queues outside banks and post offices as a &quot;serious issue&quot; following the government&#39;s decision to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes.&nbsp;

The bench, comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A R Dave, expressed its reservation on the government&#39;s plea seeking a direction that no other court in the country should entertain petitions challenging the decision.&nbsp;

The attorney general Mukul Rohatgi submitted that any matter challenging the demonetisation issue be heard by the Supreme Court only.

The apex court ordered all the parties involved to be prepared with data and other issues in writing, after it noted that &quot;some measures are required&quot; to provide relief to the people.&nbsp;

The court observed, &quot;the people have to go to the high court. If we shut them from going to the high court, how can we know the magnitude of the problem. People going to different courts indicates the magnitude of the problem.&quot;

Rohatgi assured the court that &quot;there is no dispute, and the queues are getting shorter&quot;.

But the bench questioned the relief measures undertaken by the central government saying, &quot;Last time you said there will be relief for people in the coming days but you have squeezed the exchange limit to Rs 2,000 only. What is the difficulty?&quot;

Elaborating on the steps taken by the government, the AG told the court that there is &quot;no shortage of funds&quot; but stated that after printing, the currency has to be moved to thousands of centres across the country and ATMs have to be re-calibrated.

He added that the farmers have been allowed to withdraw Rs 50,000 and people having weddings at home can withdraw Rs 2.5 lakh.

(WION with inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

The attorney general made a plea to the apex court that any matter challenging the decision be heard only by them

The Supreme Court of India today dubbed the long queues outside banks and post offices as a "serious issue" following the government's decision to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes. The bench, comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A R Dave, expressed its reservation on the government's plea seeking a direction that no other court in the country should entertain petitions challenging the decision. The attorney general Mukul Rohatgi submitted that any matter challenging the demonetisation issue be heard by the Supreme Court only. The apex court ordered all the parties involved to be prepared with data and other issues in writing, after it noted that "some measures are required" to provide relief to the people. The court observed, "the people have to go to the high court. If we shut them from going to the high court, how can we know the magnitude of the problem. People going to different courts indicates the magnitude of the problem." Rohatgi assured the court that "there is no dispute, and the queues are getting shorter". But the bench questioned the relief measures undertaken by the central government saying, "Last time you said there will be relief for people in the coming days but you have squeezed the exchange limit to Rs 2,000 only. What is the difficulty?" Elaborating on the steps taken by the government, the AG told the court that there is "no shortage of funds" but stated that after printing, the currency has to be moved to thousands of centres across the country and ATMs have to be re-calibrated. He added that the farmers have been allowed to withdraw Rs 50,000 and people having weddings at home can withdraw Rs 2.5 lakh. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Demonetisation: Supreme Court says long queues outside banks 'serious issue'

The Supreme Court of India today modified its order asking Karnataka to release Cauvery water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief until September 20. 
 
The apex court has reduced the amount to 12,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water per day from its earlier order of 15,000 cusecs of water to ameliorate the plight of farmers of the neighbouring state. 
 
Karnataka had protested against the verdict seeking modification of the direction to reduce the quantum of water to be released. 
 
After hearings stiff claims and counter-claims of the two states, the court has fixed a further date of hearing on the concept of fair compensation in the matter.&nbsp; 
 
The application asked the court to restrict the release of water to only six days as the state itself was facing a distress situation.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Even the minimum arrangement mentioned by your lordships has caused distress and havoc in the entire southern part of Karnataka, paralysing civil life. The agitation of farmers has been that their dry crop is equalled with that of the farmers in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu&#39;s need for the rice crop consumes more than twice the water which is needed for light crops in Karnataka,&quot; the application said. 
 
Karnataka government said the massive agitation was causing a loss of Rs 500 crore per day.&nbsp; 
 
The Cauvery Supervisory Committee is holding a meeting to decide on the quantum of the river&#39;s water to be released to Tamil Nadu and other states. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

Supreme Court asks the southern state of Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief

The Supreme Court of India today modified its order asking Karnataka to release Cauvery water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief until September 20. The apex court has reduced the amount to 12,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water per day from its earlier order of 15,000 cusecs of water to ameliorate the plight of farmers of the neighbouring state. Karnataka had protested against the verdict seeking modification of the direction to reduce the quantum of water to be released. After hearings stiff claims and counter-claims of the two states, the court has fixed a further date of hearing on the concept of fair compensation in the matter. The application asked the court to restrict the release of water to only six days as the state itself was facing a distress situation. "Even the minimum arrangement mentioned by your lordships has caused distress and havoc in the entire southern part of Karnataka, paralysing civil life. The agitation of farmers has been that their dry crop is equalled with that of the farmers in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu's need for the rice crop consumes more than twice the water which is needed for light crops in Karnataka," the application said. Karnataka government said the massive agitation was causing a loss of Rs 500 crore per day. The Cauvery Supervisory Committee is holding a meeting to decide on the quantum of the river's water to be released to Tamil Nadu and other states. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India's apex court modifies order on Cauvery water sharing

It said it was concerned about human rights violations in capital cities like Manipur's Imphal even as Indian government defended its forces

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday said it is not the Line of Control (LoC), but the human rights violations happening in the heart of state capitals that it is more concerned about. The Indian government stoutly defended the role of security forces in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern state of Manipur. "It is not the Line of Control (LoC), but the heart of the cities like Imphal, is what we are concerned. Public order needs to be followed," a bench of Justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit said after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that security forces at LoC or during insurgent operations have to act in a particular way. The bench, referring to an earlier constitution bench judgement in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (NHRC) case, said law in this regard has already been settled, as it has ruled that though an internal disturbance is a cause for concern, it does not threaten the security of the country. While NHRC counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam contended that there was "no accountability" in case of human rights violations, Rohatgi said the security personnel have to act "in a particular way" on the LoC or during an insurgent operation. Rohatgi said, "Truth of human rights violations if any can be found through criminal trials. It is a serious situation. Security personnel at a Line of Control (LOC) or during an insurgent operations has to act in a particular way. How else we do it.” He said what happened in the 1980's and retrospective enquiry into those incidents will have serious effect on the Indian Army, whether in Manipur or in Jammu and Kashmir. On the other hand, Subramaniam said "if there are abrogation of human rights, then accountability has to be fixed on the erring personnel. Here there is no accountability". The army or security forces refuse to give any details about cases if there are allegations of human rights violation and asserted that under the Armed Force Special Powers Act (AFSPA) or any other law this cannot be done. "In Manipur, it took three years to get an information regarding a case of alleged human rights violation. NHRC is a responsible fact-finding body. No government can say it is not accountable for violation of human rights," Subramaniam said. (WION with inputs from PTI)

More worried about human rights violation by security forces: India's Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India will today begin its hearing in the appeals filed by the four accused in the landmark December 16 gang rape case which had rocked the nation. 
 
Twenty three-year-old Nirbhaya was brutally assaulted and gang-raped by six people in a moving bus in the capital city of New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012 and thrown out of the vehicle. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. 
 
A special bench of the Indian apex court hearing the plea of convicts awarded death in the case has decided to sit two hours beyond its working time to ensure speedy disposal of the case that has been pending in the court for more than two years. 
 
The convicts Vinay Sharma (23), Akshay Thakur (31), Mukesh (29) and Pawan Gupta (22) were awarded death sentence by a trial court in September 2013 and six months later the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts then approached the Supreme Court which in 2014 had stayed their execution and the matter is pending in the top court since then. 
 
The Delhi High Court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as &#39;extremely fiendish&#39; and &#39;unparalleled in the history of criminal jurisprudence&#39; and said the exemplary punishment was the need of the hour. 
 
Though arguments started in April before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, arguments will have to be made afresh since the combination of judges in the bench has been changed. 
 
The bench comprises Justices Dipak Misra, C. Nagappan and Ms. R. Banumathi. 
 
(ANI)

Jyoti Singh Pandey (23) was assaulted and gang raped by six on December 16, 2012. She died on Dec 29

The Supreme Court of India will today begin its hearing in the appeals filed by the four accused in the landmark December 16 gang rape case which had rocked the nation. Twenty three-year-old Nirbhaya was brutally assaulted and gang-raped by six people in a moving bus in the capital city of New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012 and thrown out of the vehicle. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. A special bench of the Indian apex court hearing the plea of convicts awarded death in the case has decided to sit two hours beyond its working time to ensure speedy disposal of the case that has been pending in the court for more than two years. The convicts Vinay Sharma (23), Akshay Thakur (31), Mukesh (29) and Pawan Gupta (22) were awarded death sentence by a trial court in September 2013 and six months later the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts then approached the Supreme Court which in 2014 had stayed their execution and the matter is pending in the top court since then. The Delhi High Court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as 'extremely fiendish' and 'unparalleled in the history of criminal jurisprudence' and said the exemplary punishment was the need of the hour. Though arguments started in April before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, arguments will have to be made afresh since the combination of judges in the bench has been changed. The bench comprises Justices Dipak Misra, C. Nagappan and Ms. R. Banumathi. (ANI)

Final hearing in India's landmark gang rape case to begin today