and southeast england. that will ease away. the low pressure moves over to scandinavia and then a quieter afternoon, not quite as windy. still blustery winds, driving in some scattered showers to the far north and west 1a to 18 degrees. the high in scotland and northern ireland 23 degrees. the high, perhaps in southeast england, but as we move out of friday into the early hours of saturday morning, there could be a pulse of very wet weather moving its way into south east and eastern england. now, we haven't seen that much in the way of rain this august, so that will bring a spell of much needed rain for the gardens out there, but it will linger for some time on saturday, only slowly easing away into the afternoon. strong as the winds further north and west. here we'll see a frequent rash of showers on and off throughout the day. top temperatures generally a little bit below par for this time of year. now from sunday and into

bank holiday monday, the azores high will tend to build back in across central and southern england. one or two weather fronts toppling across that high. so once again, we're back to showers or longer spells of rain into the far north and west. hopefully a little drier and eventually a little bit warmer further south. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. india, the world's most populous democracy, proclaims the strength of its constitution and the independence of its judicial institutions. together, they guarantee the rights of the indian citizen, irrespective of creed, caste or gender. well, that's the theory. to many indians, reality looks different. my guest is prominent indian human rights lawyer karuna nundy, who's won plaudits overseas and made enemies at home with her activism.

when it comes to indian women, muslims, gays, do the law and the courts offer genuine protection? karuna nundy in delhi, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. it's a great pleasure to have you on the programme. let me start by taking you back quite a few years. you studied law at cambridge university. you had the opportunity to stay in the uk, train to be a barrister. i dare say you would have been very successful.

but you decided to return home to india, saying that that's where you felt you were needed, where you could make a difference. do you think you maybe underestimated how difficult it would be to make a difference? no, ididn't. i always thought it would be hard. but after cambridge, i actually went to new york and went to columbia, where the protests have been happening now, and did the bar exam there. worked for a while at the un. and, you know, i was 2a, and very impressed with myself and how important i was and how much money i was making. but i think somewhere i really felt that, um, this is where i could really make the most difference, notjust in terms of people's basic rights, but also in terms of, um, you know, contributing to the strengthening of the rule of law in general, whether it's in the commercial field or other kinds of litigation.

iwill say, though, that, um, around the time that i was in law school and then finishing, the rwanda genocide happened, and pinochet was held somewhat accountable. and there is no doubt in my mind that we are all responsible for a genocide that happens in another part of the world. my decision was merely because, um, i felt that my contribution could be greatest here, and i see no reason that international law issues should be led only from london or paris and new york. i think it's very important for international law to also be led from countries like india and other countries in asia and africa. and i know you still give advice to the united nations and various different international legal organisations. your perspective is still international. but if i may, today, i really do want to focus mostly on what is happening inside your own country and the legal work you're

doing to address it. one of the most striking phrases you have used about india is this — you talk about "a cancer of the patriarchy" inside your own country. ijust wonder, when you used that phrase some years ago, whether you think it still applies today and whether that disease, that cancer of the patriarchy, is still spreading. so, that phrase was used... ..in the two minutes i got when i was given the... ..when i was counted amongst the time 100, and i was talking about the backlash. and there is a backlash, notjust in india, but the world over, to women asserting ourselves, to claiming our freedoms, sovereignty over our bodies. and that backlash is leveraging traditional patriarchy and repackaging it as victimhood. and that is metastasising. and i think that when we look at the rape conviction rates, for example, in your own country,

in england, which are in the single digits... i think the last time i checked was 3%, but i believe that's reduced even further. um, in france, it's very low. in india, it's actually at 27%. but of course, there's a lot of violence against women here. and the rising that we see now on pursuant to the gang rape of the young woman in kolkata, the young medical student... yeah. we... i should just say, for our audience, we are speaking to each other literally within 2a hours of a mass protest, mostly of women, in kolkata protesting about the terrible case of a young female student doctor who was raped and murdered, it seems, inside a hospital in kolkata. and it's revived so many women's anger about what they clearly see as a failure of the system, thejudicial system,

the policing system, to offer real protection to women. so, as this movement now has been going for many years, the question is, has anything actually changed? stephen, i think it's important to understand that individual women have carried this anger and fear, but also hope. right? and it's when we coalesce together in larger numbers that, um, the rising and the voices are heard and the ability to reclaim that much more space. this is true of indian women, but this is also true of women in the united states. harvey weinstein's victims — i mean, look at what happened to that. the metoo allegations in the media industry in the uk. and i think that, um, while none of us would want to go back 50 years, so things have improved, there is a huge problem. and that problem is the persistence of dominance of the patriarchy and a particular gender.

but the great thing is that there are a number of strands that are emerging. there is the backlash from the so—called men's rights associations that we were just speaking about. but there are also increasingly large numbers of men, and young men in particular, that understand that patriarchy doesn't serve them either. and some of them are standing with us — in the marital rape case, for example. and, um, women are claiming our space in ways that are, i think, unprecedented. so there is a lot of hope. 27% is the conviction rate here in india. and why is that? it's because of one of the successes of the women's movement. and the success is this — that the testimony of a rape victim or a victim of other sexual assault

is given as much credence as any other witness. right? which means that, um, if it is consistent, if it is of sterling quality, if it withstands the kind of cross—examination that you sometimes do here on hardtalk, and if it withstands judicial scrutiny, then it is sufficient to convict a rapist. let me ask you a blunt question. i mean, if you were assaulted, harassed in any way, if violence were used against you, and you went to the police tomorrow, do you believe the police in india now take women seriously and do their absolute utmost to bring those responsible to justice? so, the answer to that is that off the back of the 2012 uprising, where it wasn't just women, but men, queerfolk, everyone took to the streets and said... you know, the young woman on the bus who was gang raped and murdered. off the back of that, we were able to bring some anti—rape laws. and one of the provisions there said

that if a police officer fails to register a complaint with regard to sexual assault or acid attacks, then that police officer, him or herself, could be prosecuted without any further permission from the state government. so that's something that's important. but in my own experience representing victims of sexual assault, um, i find that only those who are somewhat activist — and i'm not activist, i'm only a lawyer — but only those who are somewhat activist are able to, um, stand the course and want to go through the process because it's very long. and... for instance, we were able to get one of the first convictions under the new law for digital rape, which is rape by finger, rape by insertion of finger.

and, um, it was an excellentjudgment. it was, um, very, very robust. but at the first hearing in the high court, when the convict — the—the rapist — went to ask for post—conviction bail, it was granted without any extensive arguments, without allowing extensive arguments. so i think, um, it's a big, long fight. but i heard you say in your kind introduction that i've had plaudits abroad and brickbats here, and that's not true. um, you know, i come from a strong community in the supreme court. i was recently designated senior advocate, and that's quite establishment. um... hang on. and i've had a lot of congratulations and support here as well. of course you have. and brickbats abroad!

you have many people who admire your work inside india, as many as there are indeed people who criticise your work. i just... let's ask you about the supreme court. as you say, you're now senior advocate before the court. what does it tell us about the supreme court that that you are trying to persuade them, amongst others, to criminalise rape within marriage — ie, to make it formally, legally, the case that a husband can indeed rape a wife. the bjp government says that it doesn't support your case. it says there isn't a, quote, "societal consensus" on the issue. what does this argument tell us? so, the supreme court hasn't heard our case yet. and we are extremely hopeful that they will be able to, that this bench will be able to, which will remain for the next three months. so time is running out. we're extremely hopeful that they will be able to hear our case. the high court did hear our case, and they heard it over a period of eight years. and... eight years? there were... eight years.

i mean, isn't this part of the problem? it's very much part of the problem. one thing that we really need to, i think, work on is more judges, more courtrooms. i mean, more goodjudges and more courtrooms and just more infrastructure. we have one of the lowestjudges per million population in the world. ghana, for instance, is — but ghana's, you know, governance is quite good in many ways — is doing better than us. um, but, yes. so there were two judgments that came out of that. one was a very strong judgment in ourfavour — the presiding judge. thejuniorjudge differed, disagreed. he represented my arguments very fairly and he disagreed in multiple ways. so the supreme court now has two 200—pagejudgments before it. it's important to remember that even though the government opposed us in the marriage equality case — the ability for queer people to get married, the legal ability that we were seeking — they opposed us very strongly in that — they did not oppose us, actually, in the, um, marital rape case.

as you say, the supreme court has yet to make a decision on marital rape. but there are other issues you've put before the court where it seems there is even more concern on the part of the democratically—elected politicians of india that you're going too far. the case that you actually just mentioned — that is the legalisation of gay marriage — the government says that that is an urban elitist policy, it is a threat to the family, it threatens the family unit, the concept of a husband, a wife and children. so my question to you is, as a lawyer, do you have to consider whether there's a danger that your push for social change may be running far ahead of public opinion and of the opinion of democratically—elected politicians?

when i hear the word "culture" or "majority", i reach for my constitution, because in this country we have a written constitution. and if even one person's fundamental rights are violated, then it is the obligation of our courts to step in. we are not merely a democracy, we are a constitutional democracy. quite famously, in the uk, blackstone, i think it was, said that if blue—eyed babies... if parliament decided that blue—eyed babies are to be killed, then, um, the courts would have to abide by that. of course, this is prior to the human rights act. um, that is not the case in this country. so when we speak of marital rape... and the fact that today... and i won't go into it too much,

because it is before the courts, but i will sort of put before your viewers what the issue is before the courts — which is that today rape is defined as nonconsensual penile vaginal penetration, penile anal penetration — anal rape — and also somebody who helps somebody else rape or gang—rape a person. so, the exception for husbands means that if a husband innerly rapes his wife or gang—rapes his wife, or, um, you know, helps somebody else rape his wife, then that is something that is...can't be called rape, that can't be prosecuted as rape. this isn't indian culture. you just said to me earlier in this interview, "stephen, i'm a lawyer. i'm not an activist." yeah. do you think, therefore, it is dangerous that in the past you have made statements that have been overtly political? for example, at the end of 2019, when asked about your view of what the right politics

is for india, you said, "the answer to, �*if not modi and the bjp, then who'? "the answer is, �*anyone.”' and in 2020, you said, "the modi government "doesn't care two hoots about women's rights." i mean, you have every right to say these things, but they are partisan, and i wonder whether it undermines the power of some of your arguments before the court, which of course have to be based upon law, not upon politics. so, who i am and what my personal views were in 2019 or 2020, or even now, isn't relevant... isn't it? ..to the arguments i make before the court. no. absolutely not. the arguments that i make before the court are channelling my client and are channelling the law. and if the courts are deciding on who i am... ..cases based on who i am, which they are not, then, you know, that would be a travesty ofjustice.

i also represent a number of commercial clients and — um, you know, in trademark cases or intellectual property cases. i represent one of the biggest fintech companies successfully. um, and cases aren't decided based on who i am. right? politics... who i am is not relevant, but i also have the right, surely, to have views from time to time as a citizen. and a tweet from... and i'm impressed with your research. this tweet was from a long time ago! but, um, you know, a tweet from 2019 or 2020 or even today can't possibly be held against my client in court, now, can it? i'm intent on not holding anything against you, just exploring the issues. i mean, itjust seems to me that... you know, thus far we've talked about sexual violence, we've talked about rape law, we've talked about gay marriage and the law with regard to that. let's talk about freedom of expression, another key area

of your legal work over many years, and the degree to which, according to various human rights groups and independentjournalism groups, india is becoming more and more repressive, more difficult to operate in as an independentjournalist. are you... as an... well, i use the word activist. you don't like the word. but as an activist, are you prepared to speak out about what you see in terms of repression in india today? i am a member of the high level panel on media freedom, and we speak of repression around the world. in terms of the rollback of free—speech rights in india... i litigate these cases on a, you know, frequent and continual basis, right? almost. partly because they go on for so long! um, and of course, i speak out about that. we are, of course, sitting in the bbc office that was raided. um, but, you know, i believe that that's been addressed. um, the twitter offices were raided. um, there has been, of course, a chilling effect in a number of ways in india

because of a number of reasons. right? one is... ..the arrests of a number of political prisoners and the long trials, the fact that, um, bail has not come easily in many of these cases. um, there is also the fact that there is a takeover of media, you know, mainstream media by, um, corporate entities that aren't being as objective about or as truthful, aren't standing for truth as much as they should be. i suppose what i'm interested in is that you have become, as you just said, senior advocate before the supreme court. and the supreme court is one of the most powerful courts

in the whole wide world. and... yes. ..if indians are to have trust in their system, theirjudicial system, they have to have trust in the supreme court itself. you know the court very well as an advocate, do you have trust today in the independence of the supreme court? i am not convinced that this is the forum on which i would want to discuss that. but... why on earth not? well, because that's the court before whom my clients seekjustice. and, um... but in terms of independence, there are... the appointment is still independent, although we have seen some challenges there... it's independent, but the way the appointment system works... there are challenges... ..which is an internal college system. only three of the 3a justices are women. there is a self—serving sort

of nature to the way in which new appointments come about. and to quote one leading indian sort of legal analyst in the atlantic magazine from earlier this year, "the court's autonomy is crumbling. "today, the court seems to be aiding, notarresting, "india's descent into authoritarianism." i just wonder what you think. so, i think we're conflating two opposite ideas here. the first is this — is that there are two ways you can appointjudges in the indian context. one is through the collegium system, which has gone back many years, to the threejudges case. um, and that... it suffers from the problem that it is somewhat opaque, that it doesn't give enough room for outside actors to have a say. um, and it has ended up with a system that has... you know, worked — somewhat.

but, you know, even today, we don't have enough women on the court, we don't have enough, you know, dalits, we don't have... you know, a queerjudge, uh, good friend of mine... uh, somebody... the collegium proposed a queer judge, an openly—queerjudge, for the first time, and the government rejected that. now, that brings us to the second way of appointing judges, which is the government... ..the government's bill, the njac bill, that was struck down by the court because the government had a veto. so the government appointing judges. now, clearly... ..there would be a happy sort of compromise with a transparent system that had the main actors on the table, deciding who is going to judge and who's also going to judge the judges. we began by discussing the degree to which you feel you've made a difference,

coming back to practise law in india. put it this way — for women in india today, for gay people in india today, for muslims in india today, do you think they can have more confidence than they would have had, say, ten years ago, that the system will serve them properly, will deliver justice? for queer people...yes. for women, the answer is mixed. i would say for muslim people as a class... ..less confidence. so, are you confident that if you stick with your career, stick with your advocacy at the supreme court, you will improve that situation? or do you think the system, frankly, is stronger than any change you seek to make? stephen, as human beings, as indians, as women,

we have no option but to hope. we must hope. and that hope is based on real... ..um...real indices. uh, and we shall fight and we shall win — notjust us in india, but all over the world — against gender discrimination, against genocide, and against discrimination against queer people, against... forjustice. notjust for basic rights, but for justice. karuna nundy, sadly, we're out of time. i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you.

hello there. storm lillian will dominate the first half of friday, but it's moving at quite a pace and so by lunchtime the worst of the weather will have cleared away. however, before then, a spell of heavy rain, but more importantly, some gales, unseasonably strong winds for this time of year and still many people on holiday. the strongest of the winds likely to be to the scottish borders down into north wales and the north midlands, a zone of winds gusting widely 50,60 miles an hour, maybe even stronger in one or two places up to 75 miles an hour. that front will ease its way steadily eastwards, so already we can see the first signs of an improving picture into the northwest of scotland. this is 6:00 friday morning. a spell of very heavy rain, maybe even some thunder clearing the scottish borders first thing and the gusts of wind widely 50, close to 60 miles an hour at time. a rash of sharp showers across northern england. a trail of cloud and nuisance rain

once again through the midlands and southeast england. that will ease away. the low pressure moves over to scandinavia and then a quieter afternoon, not quite as windy. still blustery winds, driving in some scattered showers to the far north and west 1a to 18 degrees. 1a to 18 degree the high in scotland and northern ireland. 23 degrees the high, perhaps in southeast england, but as we move out of friday into the early hours of saturday morning, there could be a pulse of very wet weather moving its way into south east and eastern england. now, we haven't seen that much in the way of rain this august, so that will bring a spell of much needed rain for the gardens out there, but it will linger for some time on saturday,

only slowly easing away into the afternoon. strongest the winds further north and west. here we'll see a frequent rash of showers on and off throughout the day. top temperatures generally a little bit below par for this time of year. now from sunday and into bank holiday monday, the azores high will tend to build back in across central and southern england. one or two weather fronts toppling across that high. so once again, we're back to showers or longer spells of rain into the far north and west. hopefully a little drier and eventually a little bit warmer further south.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm steve lai. the headlines. it's the final day of the democratic

national convention — democrats are gathering to witness vice—president kamala harris make the biggest speech of her life. the body of the british tech entrepreneur, mike lynch, has been recovered, after his yacht sank off the coast of sicily. the search continues for his teenage daughter, hannah. russians marked a patriotic holiday — flag day — to much pomp and ceremony, despite ukraine continuing to launch attacks on the country's territory. a breakthrough in alzheimer's treatment — but it won't automatically be available in the uk —— the regulator says the benefits are too small to justify the cost. hello, it's 7am here in singapore and 6pm in chicago where kamala harris is getting ready for one of the biggest

moments of her political career.