 "Sheikh Hasina, the then-newly elected prime minister of Bangladesh and chairperson of Bangladesh Awami League, speaks during a meeting with foreign observers and journalists at the prime minister's residence in Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 8, 2024. File Image/Reuters")
A death sentence has been handed to former Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been living in India since August 2024.
The Monday ruling by a special tribunal was on charges of crimes against humanity linked to the violent suppression of last year’s student-led uprising and is potentially leading to a diplomatic standoff between Dhaka and New Delhi.
A three-member judicial panel declared Hasina and former Bangladesh Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan guilty of orchestrating the state’s deadly response to months of protests.
Hasina, however, issued a rebuttal from India, rejecting the legitimacy of the trial. She described the court as a “rigged tribunal”, arguing that the charges against her were unfounded.
Highlighting the chaotic nature of the events, she stated that she and Khan “acted in good faith and were trying to minimise the loss of life.”
She insisted that “we lost control of the situation, but to characterise what happened as a premeditated assault on citizens is simply to misread the facts,” labelling the ruling as “biased and politically motivated.”
The verdict has created pressure on India to respond to Bangladesh’s formal requests for extradition, with Dhaka insisting that sending Hasina back is a legally binding duty under the bilateral treaty.
India, however, has signalled that it is carefully reviewing the matter within the framework of domestic law and treaty obligations.
How Dhaka politicians reacted after the Hasina verdict
Bangladesh’s interim government moved swiftly after the verdict to increase diplomatic pressure on India.
Statements issued by the ministry of home affairs and the ministry of foreign affairs in Dhaka urged New Delhi to transfer Hasina and Khan without delay.
One of the official statements said it would be “extremely unfriendly and demeaning to justice for any other country to grant asylum to these individuals convicted of crimes against humanity.”
It asserted, “We urge the Indian government to immediately hand over these two convicts to the Bangladeshi authorities. It is also a legal obligation for India as per the existing extradition treaty between the two countries.”
According to state media reports, Bangladesh had already submitted a diplomatic note in December the previous year, formally asking India to extradite Hasina. While India acknowledged receiving the note, it refrained from making any public comment at the time.
As the pressure escalated, Bangladeshi legal adviser Asif Nazrul announced that Dhaka would send another letter, reinforcing its demand for the handover.
He argued that India’s protection of Hasina would amount to antagonism, saying, “If India continues to shelter this mass murderer, then India must understand that it is an act of hostility…”
He also described the sentencing as “the greatest event of establishing justice on the soil of Bangladesh,” adding, “I am not surprised (by the verdict). Given the fresh, irrefutable and strong evidence of crimes against humanity committed by Hasina and her associates, they should be given the maximum punishment if tried in any court in the world.”
Opposition parties and other political groups in Bangladesh echoed the call for extradition. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) criticised India, with senior leader Ruhul Kabir Rizvi stating that New Delhi had given asylum to a “fugitive criminal,” arguing that such protection allowed her to continue “wrongful activities.”
Jamaat-e-Islami, represented by its secretary general Mia Golam Porwar, demanded that New Delhi act as a responsible neighbour, declaring “If one claims to behave as a good neighbour, if one aspires to maintain friendly relations, this is their foremost responsibility.”
The National Citizen Party also issued a statement asserting that Hasina’s punishment represented “appropriate justice.”
Member-Secretary Akhter Hossain urged Delhi to send her back, stating, “We call upon the Government of India not to give refuge to Sheikh Hasina. She carried out genocide against the people of Bangladesh and committed crimes against humanity. India must hand her over to Bangladesh’s justice system.”
Bangladesh has also signalled that its national security adviser, Khalilur Rahman, would raise the matter during his upcoming visit to India, making it a high-priority issue for bilateral discussions.
How India responded and how it may respond in the future
India has not committed to any definitive position.
Following the announcement of the verdict, the Ministry of External Affairs acknowledged the ruling but refrained from addressing the extradition request directly.
The ministry noted, “As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country. We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end.”
Later, India’s foreign secretary added that the matter required formal bilateral discussions, explaining, “This is a judicial and legal process. It requires engagement and consultations between the two governments. We are examining this issue and we look forward to working with the authorities in Bangladesh."
The Indian Extradition Act of 1962 grants wide-ranging authority to the central government to deny, delay, or discontinue extradition proceedings.
Under Section 29, the government can refuse extradition if the request appears politically motivated, is made in bad faith, or is deemed not to serve the interests of justice.
The law also gives the government the power to halt proceedings and withdraw warrants at any point.
Section 31 adds further restrictions, including a prohibition on extradition if the offence in question is political in nature or if the accused can demonstrate that the request is intended to punish them for political reasons.
The same section also prevents extradition if the case is barred by limitation under the laws of the requesting country.
The India-Bangladesh extradition treaty outlines additional considerations.
Article 6 states that political offences may justify refusal. However, the treaty explicitly clarifies that certain grave crimes — including murder, terrorism, explosions, aggravated assault, weapons offences, kidnappings, and violations covered by multilateral conventions — cannot be dismissed as political acts.
Article 7 permits India to deny extradition if New Delhi chooses to initiate legal proceedings domestically for the offences in question. If India does not bring charges, it must revisit the extradition request.
Article 8 requires India to refuse extradition if the request relates to trivial offences, if the request lacks good faith, if excessive time has passed since the alleged crimes, or if the offence is of a purely military nature.
Notably, Article 21 of the treaty prevents the United Nations or the International Court of Justice from intervening.
Any disagreement must be resolved solely between India and Bangladesh.
India’s assessment, therefore, will involve reviewing the legal status of the case, the fairness of the trial process, and the political context surrounding the request.
Indian authorities must consider whether the charges meet the treaty thresholds and whether Hasina might argue that the prosecution is political or unjust.
Why this has put New Delhi in a dillema
While India has avoided public commentary on the political implications, analysts observe that the extradition request places New Delhi in a difficult position.
Hasina, once one of India’s most reliable partners in the region, sought refuge in the country under the belief that India would not abandon her.
Fulfilling Bangladesh’s request could be seen as damaging India’s credibility with allies who depend on its support during political unrest.
On the other hand, rejecting Dhaka’s demands exposes India to criticism for allegedly shielding individuals convicted of serious crimes.
Bangladesh’s interim government has already signalled that refusal would influence future ties, particularly as Dhaka pursues closer engagement with Pakistan and expands its military cooperation with new partners like China.
For the moment, India appears to be following a methodical legal review, indicating that consultations will continue before it reaches a final decision.
Under Bangladeshi law, individuals sentenced in absentia can appeal only if they return to the country or are arrested within 30 days of the judgment.
Since Hasina remains in India, and New Delhi has not yet acted on Dhaka’s requests, such a development appears unlikely in the near future.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies