In a dramatic turn of events that has gripped South Asia, former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina finds herself at the center of a legal and diplomatic storm. Sentenced to death by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal for alleged crimes against humanity during the tumultuous July-August 2024 student uprising, Hasina is now living in exile in India, sparking a fierce debate over her fate and the broader implications for regional relations.
The recent verdict has sent shockwaves through both Bangladesh and India. The interim government in Dhaka has formally requested that India extradite Hasina, along with ex-Home Minister Asaduzzaman Kamal, who faces similar charges and is also in exile in India. According to reports from Dhaka cited by Al Jazeera, the Bangladeshi administration plans to send another letter to New Delhi, reiterating its demand for Hasina’s return to face the death sentence imposed by the tribunal.
Yet, as legal and diplomatic experts point out, the odds of India complying with this request are slim to none. Sreeradha Datta, a professor specializing in South Asian Studies at Jindal Global University, told Al Jazeera, “Under no circumstances is India going to extradite her…We saw in the last year and a half that relationships between India and Bangladesh are not at their best, and have been fragile at many occasions.” The Indian Foreign Ministry has maintained that Hasina came to India at short notice for safety reasons and continues to stay there for her protection. Randhir Jaiswal, a spokesperson for the ministry, previously explained to reporters, “On the stay of the former prime minister (Hasina), I had earlier mentioned that she had come here at short notice for safety reasons, and she continues to be here.”
At the heart of the legal debate is the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, first signed in 2013 and amended in 2016. While the treaty does create a general obligation to extradite individuals charged with serious crimes, it also carves out key exceptions—most notably for political offenses. Hasina’s case, many argue, falls squarely within this exception. As Aaditya Bhatt, a legal expert with Ahmedabad-based Bhatt and Joshi Associates, explained, “Section 31 of the Extradition Act, 1962, read with Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty (2013, amended 2016), provides India with substantial legal grounds to decline Bangladesh’s extradition request.”
Bhatt elaborated further, noting that Article 8 of the treaty 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. He added, “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.”
Concerns about the fairness of the proceedings have surfaced from multiple corners. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was originally established in 2010 to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War. However, its mandate has since expanded, and amendments to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 have allowed it to take on cases beyond its original scope. In Hasina’s case, critics argue the tribunal’s process was rushed and deeply flawed. Bhatt pointed to “hasty tribunal proceedings, trial in absentia, absence of independent legal representation, and death sentence imposed following a regime change” as serious red flags undermining fair trial guarantees and judicial independence.
India’s own constitutional principles add another layer of complexity. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, all persons—including foreign nationals—are entitled to due process and fair procedure before any deprivation of liberty. Indian courts have consistently held that individuals facing extradition retain constitutional protections, and any foreign proceedings must meet fundamental standards of fairness. As Bhatt observed, “Indian courts have consistently held that individuals facing extradition retain Constitutional protections requiring independent judicial scrutiny of whether the foreign proceedings meet fundamental standards of fairness – a threshold the Bangladesh proceedings appear not to satisfy given the political context, procedural deficiencies, and proportionality concerns surrounding capital punishment.”
For her part, Hasina has vehemently denied all allegations. In a written statement, she rejected the charges of crimes against humanity tied to the 2024 crackdown and insisted she never ordered security forces to fire on protesters. “The sentencing in Bangladesh’s International Crime Tribunal (ICT) is biased and politically motivated,” she declared. Former Home Minister Kamal, echoing Hasina’s sentiments, called the ICT “invalid and unconstitutional.”
The 2024 uprising that ultimately led to Hasina’s ouster began as a student-led movement demanding reforms to the quota system for government jobs. What started in early June as peaceful demonstrations quickly spiraled into violent clashes, with at least 1,000 protesters killed, according to reports cited by Al Jazeera. The unrest was fueled by widespread anger over corruption, authoritarianism, and economic mismanagement, and culminated in Hasina’s removal from office in August 2024. Since then, the streets of Dhaka have remained tense, with security forces maintaining a heavy presence amid fears of further mass unrest.
Hasina’s relationship with India is long and storied. After surviving the assassination of many family members in 1975, she found refuge in India, which continued to support her during turbulent times. During her tenure as Bangladesh’s prime minister, she was widely seen as a valuable ally by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The two countries enjoyed strong diplomatic and trade ties, exemplified by major economic deals such as the 2017 agreement between Bangladesh and India’s Adani Group for a $1.7 billion coal-based power plant in Jharkhand, India.
But the events of 2024 have tested the resilience of this partnership. While India and Bangladesh do have an extradition treaty, the exclusion of political offenses and the mounting concerns over the fairness of Hasina’s trial have created a diplomatic impasse. Indian officials have, so far, sidestepped calls for extradition, citing both legal and humanitarian grounds.
As the legal and political drama continues to unfold, the region watches closely. The question of Hasina’s fate is more than a matter of extradition; it’s a test of international legal norms, human rights, and the sometimes fragile bonds between neighboring democracies. For now, Sheikh Hasina remains in India, her future uncertain, as the world awaits the next move in this high-stakes saga.
