The fate of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina remains uncertain after a tribunal in her home country sentenced her to death in connection with deadly violence during a student-led uprising last year. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh on Monday handed Hasina, 78, the death penalty for ordering the use of lethal force while cracking down on protests in August 2024, during which she fled to India. A separate sentence of imprisonment until death was also awarded for her alleged complicity in crimes committed by law enforcement and armed cadres associated with her Awami League party.

Since the verdict, questions have arisen over India’s potential response to Bangladesh’s request for Hasina’s extradition. While the Bangladesh interim government has insisted that no one is above the law and sought her handover, India has maintained a measured stance, neither confirming nor denying its intent to act on the request.

India’s Initial Response

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated on Monday that India had taken note of the tribunal’s verdict, reaffirming its commitment to peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability in Bangladesh. The statement read, “India has noted the verdict announced by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh concerning former prime minister Sheikh Hasina. As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability. We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end.”

An Indian government source cited in a Reuters report clarified that extradition is a complex process requiring a thorough review of tribunal documents, including evidence, procedural fairness, representation, and credible testimony. Without access to these records, India cannot act. The source also noted that extradition treaties often include exemptions for political cases, which India may invoke if the matter is considered politically motivated.

Despite Bangladesh’s insistence—stating that India’s failure to return Hasina would be “a highly unfriendly gesture and an affront to justice”—India has not indicated immediate compliance. Bangladesh’s foreign ministry highlighted that under the 2013 extradition treaty, as amended in 2016, India has a binding obligation to consider the request.

Extradition Treaties and Dual Criminality

The extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh operates on the principle of dual criminality. This means that the offence for which extradition is requested must be punishable under the laws of both countries. While Hasina’s conviction technically satisfies procedural requirements, India retains the discretion to deny extradition if the charges do not align with domestic definitions of offences.

Article 2 of the treaty specifies that, in determining whether an act constitutes an offence in both contracting states, it does not matter if the law of the two countries categorises or names the offence differently. Article 8 provides further grounds for refusal, allowing India to deny extradition if the accused can demonstrate that the request is unjust or oppressive. This includes cases where charges are trivial, not made in good faith, politically motivated, or could result in persecution of the accused.

Article 6 specifically permits refusal if the offence is “political in nature,” though it clarifies that crimes such as murder, terrorism, kidnapping, or offences under multilateral treaties cannot be treated as political. While Hasina’s charges include murder, disappearances, and torture—falling outside the political exemption—the determination of political motivation could still influence India’s decision. Article 7 allows India to decline extradition if it opts to prosecute the accused domestically instead of transferring them abroad.

India’s Domestic Extradition Laws

India’s Extradition Act, 1962, supplements treaty provisions by granting the government wide powers to deny extradition, stay proceedings, or discharge the person sought. Section 29 specifically allows rejection if the request appears trivial, not made in good faith, politically motivated, or otherwise not in the interest of justice. The law also permits authorities to halt proceedings or cancel warrants at any stage, giving the Indian government significant discretion in handling sensitive cases like that of Sheikh Hasina.

This legal framework gives India flexibility to evaluate Bangladesh’s request carefully, ensuring that any action is consistent with domestic laws, principles of natural justice, and international obligations. Given the political sensitivities surrounding Hasina’s case and the ongoing debates about the fairness of the trial in Bangladesh, the Indian government is expected to proceed cautiously.

Political Context and International Reactions

The case has drawn attention not only for its legal complexities but also for its political and diplomatic implications. Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence follows a period of significant unrest in Bangladesh, when student-led protests against government policies escalated into widespread violence. Her decision to flee to India and seek refuge has turned the situation into a high-profile international issue, testing the boundaries of bilateral treaties, extradition norms, and diplomatic engagement.

Sajeeb Wazed, Hasina’s son, has labelled the extradition request as “illegal” and expressed confidence that India will not comply. In an interview with ANI, he said, “I think they [the Indian government] know very well how to handle this extradition request. I don’t think the Indian government is going to respond to such an illegal request. I have faith in Indian democracy and its belief in the rule of law.”

Diplomatic observers note that India must balance its legal obligations under the treaty with considerations of fairness, human rights, and political neutrality. Extraditing a former head of government, particularly under contested legal circumstances, carries the risk of being perceived as taking sides in Bangladesh’s domestic politics.

Key Legal Considerations for India

1. Dual Criminality: The offence must exist in Indian law. India will examine whether Hasina’s alleged crimes—murder, torture, or disappearances—are punishable under domestic statutes.
2. Political Nature of Offence: India can invoke the “political offence” exemption if it believes the charges are politically motivated, even though the treaty excludes offences like murder or terrorism from this category.
3. Fair Trial and Due Process: Indian authorities may request documents to verify whether the tribunal trial in Bangladesh adhered to internationally recognized standards of justice, including access to legal representation, impartiality, and credibility of evidence.
4. Risk of Persecution: If extradition is likely to result in persecution or inhuman treatment, India may reject the request under both treaty and domestic provisions.
5. Domestic Prosecution Option: Article 7 allows India to prosecute an accused domestically rather than extradite them. While this is unlikely in Hasina’s case, it remains a legal avenue.

Next Steps

India is expected to formally review the extradition request, seeking all relevant documentation from Bangladesh to assess its validity and ensure procedural compliance. The process could involve legal scrutiny by the Ministry of External Affairs, the Law Ministry, and the courts before a decision is made. Given the high-profile nature of the case and its potential diplomatic ramifications, any action is likely to be preceded by extensive consultations with legal experts and policymakers.

At present, India’s public position remains cautious, signalling recognition of the tribunal’s verdict without committing to extradition. Observers suggest that the Indian government is likely to weigh legal obligations against political prudence, international law, and human rights considerations before taking any steps.

Conclusion

The extradition of Sheikh Hasina from India to Bangladesh presents a complex intersection of international treaties, domestic laws, political considerations, and human rights concerns. While the 2013 India-Bangladesh extradition treaty, amended in 2016, provides a framework for action, clauses concerning dual criminality, political offences, and fairness allow India discretion in handling the request. Similarly, the Extradition Act, 1962, empowers the Indian government to reject or stay proceedings if they are deemed unjust, politically motivated, or not in the interest of justice.

As of now, India has neither confirmed nor denied the extradition request. The process will likely involve careful examination of tribunal documents, evidence, and legal arguments, with significant attention to international norms and bilateral relations. In the meantime, Bangladesh has asserted its expectation of cooperation, while Hasina’s family continues to maintain that the request is unlawful, creating a delicate diplomatic and legal scenario.