India is currently assessing a formal extradition request from Bangladesh for former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who was recently sentenced to death by a Bangladeshi tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity. The development has added a complex diplomatic layer to an already sensitive regional situation, as New Delhi balances legal obligations, bilateral ties, and broader geopolitical considerations. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed that the request is undergoing scrutiny through India’s judicial and internal legal procedures, signaling that any decision will not be rushed and will likely involve multiple institutional layers.

The Bangladeshi request stems from a verdict delivered on November 17 by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), a domestic war crimes court established by Bangladesh’s current interim administration. In this unprecedented judgment, Sheikh Hasina was convicted of inciting, facilitating, and being complicit in crimes committed by security forces and ruling-party cadres during student-led protests in 2024. The tribunal sentenced her to death and imposed a separate sentence of imprisonment until death on additional charges, fueling intense debate within Bangladesh and internationally. Dhaka has formally asked India to hand her over under the existing bilateral extradition treaty between the two countries, insisting that justice must run its course regardless of the political stature of the accused.

MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, addressing the media at a weekly briefing, reiterated that India’s position remains centered on the welfare of Bangladesh’s people and the stability of the region. He emphasized India’s commitment to peace, democracy, inclusion, and constructive engagement with all relevant stakeholders in Bangladesh. His remarks suggested that New Delhi is carefully navigating the political sensitivities surrounding the case, particularly given the dramatic backdrop against which Hasina’s government fell and her subsequent flight to India in August 2024.

Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s longest-serving prime minister and one of South Asia’s most influential political figures, has rejected the tribunal’s judgment as politically motivated. In her reaction to the death sentence, she asserted that the verdict was delivered by a “rigged tribunal” formed by what she calls an unelected government seeking to dismantle the Awami League as a political force. Her comments have resonated among party loyalists and segments of the Bangladeshi diaspora, who argue that the charges are part of a larger effort to rewrite the political landscape following the mass protests that toppled her government.

However, Bangladesh’s interim leadership maintains that the conviction reflects a commitment to the rule of law. Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, who heads the current administration, stated that the decision demonstrates that “no one, regardless of power, is above the law.” His comments highlight the government’s effort to frame the tribunal’s actions as a step toward accountability after a period of intense political upheaval.

Beyond Hasina, two of her closest associates—former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun—were also tried and convicted. Kamal, like Hasina, received a death sentence and is believed to be residing in Kolkata after fleeing Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s foreign ministry has demanded the immediate handover of both Hasina and Kamal, citing the terms of the bilateral extradition treaty and characterizing them as fugitives from justice.

The matter has taken on additional strategic dimensions due to the proximity of the verdict to high-level security discussions between India and Bangladesh. On November 19, just two days after the tribunal’s decision, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval held extensive talks with his Bangladeshi counterpart Khalilur Rahman in New Delhi. Their discussions covered a broad range of bilateral and regional security concerns, and came on the eve of the 7th meeting of the Colombo Security Conclave (CSC), a multilateral initiative involving India, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius, and Bangladesh. The CSC aims to enhance cooperation on maritime security, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and broader regional stability in the Indian Ocean region, a space where strategic competition—particularly involving China—has been steadily intensifying.

The timing of these meetings suggests that the extradition issue, while not publicly highlighted, likely formed part of the closed-door conversations between the two national security advisers. India has long viewed Bangladesh as a crucial partner in its neighborhood, especially in matters of security cooperation, counterterrorism coordination, and regional connectivity. At the same time, New Delhi is aware that any decision concerning Sheikh Hasina, a long-time ally whose administration maintained some of the closest Bangladesh-India relations in decades, must be handled with delicacy. A hasty or unilateral move could risk exacerbating tensions or influencing Bangladesh’s volatile political environment.

The legal process itself is expected to be complicated. Extradition between India and Bangladesh is governed by specific treaty provisions, which require a detailed review of the charges, supporting evidence, and the nature of the trial. India will likely examine whether the conditions of the tribunal meet the standards required under Indian law, including considerations related to human rights, fair trial standards, and the implications of extraditing an individual facing capital punishment. Historically, India has exercised caution when extradition requests involve the death penalty, often seeking assurances or undertaking prolonged consultations before making a decision. Given that this case concerns a former head of government with longstanding ties to India, the scrutiny is expected to be even more rigorous.

The broader political implications within Bangladesh also cannot be ignored. Since the fall of Hasina’s government, the country has undergone significant political realignment. The mass uprisings of 2024, fueled by student unrest and public discontent, led to a caretaker administration taking over. The current government has positioned itself as a reformist force intent on rebuilding democratic institutions and addressing abuses that it alleges were rampant under the previous regime. The tribunal’s verdict is therefore seen by many observers as part of this larger effort to signal accountability. Yet critics argue that the haste and severity of the sentencing raise concerns about due process and political motivations.

India’s eventual decision—whether it chooses to extradite Sheikh Hasina or deny the request—will have far-reaching consequences. Agreeing to extradition could be interpreted as an endorsement of the tribunal’s proceedings and a shift in India’s traditional warmth toward Hasina and the Awami League. Refusing the request, on the other hand, could strain relations with Bangladesh’s interim government and risk complicating India’s strategic priorities in the region.

For now, New Delhi continues to publicly emphasize legal procedure and constructive engagement. As the judicial review progresses, both countries are expected to maintain close diplomatic communication, recognizing that the outcome of this case will influence not only bilateral ties but also the broader geopolitical dynamics of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region.