Extradition of Sheikh Hasina: India’s Legal Obligations and the Legitimacy of the Tribunal

The sentencing of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death by a special tribunal in Dhaka has triggered intense debate across South Asia. With Hasina currently in India, the critical question arises: Is India legally bound to extradite her for execution? Additionally, concerns surround the legitimacy and political neutrality of the tribunal that delivered the verdict. Understanding the situation requires an examination of extradition law, bilateral treaties, human rights considerations, and the political environment surrounding the case.

India–Bangladesh Extradition Treaty and Its Limitations

India and Bangladesh signed an extradition treaty in 2013 to promote cooperation on criminal matters. On the surface, the treaty allows either country to request the extradition of individuals facing criminal charges or convictions. However, the treaty also contains strong protective clauses that give India discretion to refuse extradition under specific circumstances.

One of the most important provisions is the “political offence exception.” Article 6 of the treaty explicitly states that if the offence for which extradition is sought is political in nature, the requested country may refuse surrender. In the case of Sheikh Hasina, many diplomats, analysts, and legal experts argue that the charges against her—including accusations of crimes against humanity connected to handling mass protests—carry a clear political context. As a long-serving prime minister who was removed following political unrest, the legal actions against her are viewed by many as part of a broader power struggle in Bangladesh. If India determines that the charges are politically motivated, the treaty gives it full authority to decline Bangladesh’s request.

Additionally, Article 8 allows India to reject extradition requests deemed unjust, oppressive, or not made in good faith. If India believes the tribunal’s process lacked impartiality or was influenced by political forces, it can refuse the extradition on legal grounds.

India’s Domestic Legal Process

Even if Bangladesh formally requests Hasina’s extradition, her transfer cannot occur automatically. Under Indian law, every extradition request must be examined through a judicial process, where courts evaluate the evidence, fairness of the requesting country’s legal system, and compliance with the treaty’s conditions. This means that Hasina has the right to challenge the request in Indian courts, which can delay or completely stop the extradition.

India also considers human rights factors, especially when extradition could result in execution or unfair treatment. While India itself retains the death penalty, it does not extradite individuals to face capital punishment unless the requesting country offers strong diplomatic assurances regarding due process and humane treatment. If India believes that the political environment in Bangladesh threatens Hasina’s safety or right to appeal, it can legally refuse to hand her over.

Legitimacy of the Tribunal Verdict

The tribunal that sentenced Sheikh Hasina—Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)—is itself a subject of controversy. The interim government claims that the tribunal operates within legal bounds and that the charges against Hasina are serious, involving crimes against humanity. However, many observers question the timing, neutrality, and procedures of the tribunal.

Human rights groups and international analysts have noted several concerns, including:

The tribunal’s unusually rapid proceedings

Lack of open access for international monitors

The political environment post-Hasina’s removal

Statements by Bangladeshi officials that appear pre-judicial

Supporters of Hasina argue that the trial is politically motivated, designed to eliminate her influence permanently. Given this context, the legitimacy of the tribunal is far from universally accepted. India, when evaluating an extradition request, will undoubtedly factor in these concerns.

Diplomatic and Regional Considerations

Beyond legal obligations, the extradition decision carries enormous strategic implications. Sheikh Hasina has been a long-time ally of India, strengthening bilateral relations on border security, economic ties, and counterterrorism. Extraditing her in the current climate could damage India’s reputation as a stable regional partner and create humanitarian concerns over enabling a politically charged execution.

On the other hand, refusing extradition may strain ties with Bangladesh’s new leadership, which insists that India has a “mandatory duty” under the treaty. India must navigate these competing pressures carefully, balancing legal principles with regional diplomacy.

Conclusion

India is not automatically bound to extradite Sheikh Hasina despite Bangladesh’s tribunal sentencing her to death. The India–Bangladesh extradition treaty provides broad exceptions for political offences and unfair judicial processes, both of which may apply in her case. The legitimacy of the tribunal itself is contested, and serious human rights and political concerns surround the verdict. Any extradition attempt would undergo a lengthy legal review within India, giving Indian courts and the government full authority to reject the request if it violates treaty conditions or humanitarian principles.

In summary, while Bangladesh may demand Hasina’s surrender, India has strong legal, ethical, and diplomatic grounds to refuse or delay extradition, especially if the verdict is judged to be politically driven or lacking impartiality."