On Monday, November 17, 2025, Bangladesh’s political landscape was shaken to its core: the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia for her alleged role in the government’s deadly crackdown on student-led protests in July 2024. The verdict also handed a death sentence to former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, who, like Hasina, has been living in exile in India since August 2024. The tribunal described Hasina as the “mastermind and principal architect” of the violent repression that killed hundreds of protesters, according to multiple reports from Dhaka and international news agencies.
The ICT’s ruling is the first time a Bangladeshi prime minister has received a capital conviction. The tribunal’s decision has sent shockwaves through the country and its diaspora, reigniting old wounds and sparking fierce debate about justice, due process, and the future of democracy in Bangladesh. The events have also placed significant strain on Bangladesh-India relations, as the interim government in Dhaka formally demanded Hasina’s immediate extradition under the countries’ extradition treaty.
Public reaction in Bangladesh has been deeply polarized. According to the Atlantic Council, some Bangladeshis—particularly those who lost friends or relatives in the July 2024 protests—see the verdict as a long-overdue acknowledgment of their grief and a measure of justice. “These two moments are united by public demands for accountability, yet each reveals how dramatically the political tide can shift,” noted Rudabeh Shahid, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Many Gen Z Bangladeshis, for instance, have celebrated the sentence, not necessarily out of support for capital punishment, but as a response to the losses they suffered during the movement that toppled Hasina’s government.
However, others warn that the verdict risks inflaming an already volatile environment. The ICT has faced longstanding criticism for perceived partiality and political motivations, particularly given its history of disproportionately targeting Jamaat-e-Islami leaders under previous administrations. Amnesty International and several legal experts have raised alarms about the fairness of the proceedings, pointing to the hasty nature of the tribunal, the trial in absentia, and the lack of independent legal representation for Hasina. Wahiduzzaman Noor, a former Bangladeshi diplomat, observed that “the judicial process surrounding the trial also raised difficult questions.”
Hasina herself has rejected the allegations and the verdict, calling the tribunal “rigged and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate.” In a written statement, she said, “They are biased and politically motivated. In their distasteful call for the death penalty, they reveal the brazen and murderous intent of extremist figures within the interim government to remove Bangladesh’s last elected prime minister, and to nullify the Awami League as a political force.” Former home minister Kamal echoed these sentiments, describing the ICT as “invalid and unconstitutional.”
The legal complexities surrounding Hasina’s potential extradition from India are immense. The interim Bangladeshi government has already sent, and plans to send further, formal requests to New Delhi for the extradition of Hasina and Kamal. But legal experts, such as Aaditya Bhatt of Bhatt and Joshi Associates, point out that India has substantial legal grounds to refuse. Section 31 of the Extradition Act, 1962, along with Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty (2013, amended 2016), provides India with the ability to decline requests if the proceedings are deemed unfair or politically motivated. Bhatt noted, “Article 8 permits refusal if the request is not made ‘in good faith in the interests of justice’ or if the accused would be subjected to torture, cruel treatment, or a trial falling below international standards.”
India’s constitutional protections, especially Article 21, mandate fair judicial procedures for all persons, including foreign nationals. Indian courts have consistently held that individuals facing extradition retain constitutional protections that require independent judicial scrutiny of whether foreign proceedings meet fundamental standards of fairness. Given the political context, procedural deficiencies, and the use of capital punishment, many legal experts believe the Bangladeshi proceedings fall short of these standards. As Bhatt put it, “The prosecution of a former head of government within 15 months of ouster, coupled with the interim administration's explicit characterisation of accountability as integral to its political mandate, warrants scrutiny as to whether the underlying motivation is justice or political retribution.”
For India, the situation is particularly delicate. Hasina has long been considered one of New Delhi’s closest allies in the region, with strong ties to both the ruling party and the opposition. As Michael Kugelman of Foreign Policy noted, “India has no intention of betraying her.” However, refusing to extradite her could complicate relations with Bangladesh’s new administration, especially with national elections scheduled for February 2026. India’s best option, according to Kugelman, may be to broker an arrangement for Hasina to be relocated to a third country—though finding a willing host for such a high-profile and controversial figure may prove challenging.
Meanwhile, the domestic political scene in Bangladesh remains fraught. The verdict has effectively split the country into two camps: those who see it as the only path toward accountability after years of perceived authoritarianism, and those who believe it undermines justice and jeopardizes national reconciliation. The Awami League, Hasina’s party, remains fiercely loyal to her and is expected to continue to operate under her leadership from exile. However, with the party barred from participating in the upcoming elections, the risk of renewed unrest is palpable. Episodes of political violence have already resurfaced in the days preceding the verdict, and Dhaka is reportedly under heavy security amidst fears of mass unrest.
It’s also worth noting the broader context: the ICT was originally established in 2010 to prosecute genocide and crimes from the 1971 Liberation War. Over time, its scope has been expanded, and its impartiality has been repeatedly questioned. The interim government amended the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 to enable the prosecution of Hasina and other political figures. For many, this raises concerns about the use of judicial mechanisms as tools of political retribution rather than impartial justice.
Despite the turbulence, some voices are calling for restraint and unity. M. Osman Siddique, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, emphasized, “My hope is that Bangladesh navigates this with restraint, respect for the rule of law, and a commitment to national harmony. It is absolutely essential that the legal process remain transparent and that peace and security are maintained for all citizens.”
As Bangladesh approaches its next election, the verdict against Hasina looms large, casting a shadow over the country’s political future and its relationships with key neighbors. Whether the nation can find a path toward stability, reconciliation, and justice remains an open—and urgent—question.
