New Delhi / Bangladesh —Diplomatic tensions between Bangladesh and India have resurfaced after a special tribunal in Dhaka recently sentenced former prime minister Sheikh Hasina to death. New Delhi seems to be adamant about why it is unlikely to turn her over, both legally and tactically, despite Dhaka’s urgent request for her extradition.
The Verdict and the Demand for Extradition
Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal were sentenced to death in absentia for crimes against humanity by Bangladesh’s international Crimes Tribunal (ICT) on November 17, 2025. The charges are related to the violent suppression of a student rebellion in July and August of 2024, which is said to have caused extensive violence and a high death toll.
Invoking the bilateral extradition treaty between the two countries, Bangladesh’s interim government formally demanded that India extradite Hasina and Kamal shortly after the ruling. Giving her asylum in India would be “extremely unfriendly and demeaning to justice,” according to the Bangladeshi Foreign Ministry. maintains that the terms of the pact require New Delhi to repatriate those convicted.
India’s Response : Cautious Engagement
A cautious reaction has been released by India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). New Delhi has not explicitly committed to extradition, even though it has formally “taken note” of the tribunal’s decision. Supporting peace, democracy, inclusivity, and stability in the region is India’s top goal, according to the MEA’s statement. It also emphasized New Delhi’s continued dedication to acting in Bangladesh’s best interests.
India has also said that it will “engage constructively with all stakeholders,” indicating a diplomatic balancing act as opposed to a hasty compliance.
Legal Safeguards and the Extradition Treaty
The 2013 India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty is one of the most compelling arguments against forced extradition. Legal experts claim that this treaty has a significant exception for political offences, which is a crucial loophole.
Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, a former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, claims that because the accusations against Hasina are primarily political in nature, India is not immediately required by law to turn her over. If extradition is sought, he continues, official legal procedures must be followed: Bangladesh must submit a request through Indian courts, and only an Indian court ruling would force the government to take action.
This is supported by the text of the treaty itself. Extradition may be denied under Article 6 if the crime is of a “political character.” However, Article 8 permits rejection if extradition would be “unjust or oppressive” or if the accusation is not made in good faith, both of which legal experts think may be relevant in Hasina’s situation.
Fairness of the Trial: Question Marks Raised
Some Indian pundits contend that the trial itself raises grave problems about fairness, going beyond the legal formalities. For example, Chakravarty has called the tribunal “fixed” and politically motivated, casting doubt on its impartiality. He claims that even Supreme Court judges were urged to retire due to political pressure, and that the judiciary was completely reorganized following Hasina’s removal.
For her part, Hasina vehemently disagrees with the tribunal’s decision. She asserts that an unelected temporary administration lacking democratic legitimacy “rigged” the process. She defended her record in government in a combative statement, citing Bangladesh’s socioeconomic advancements throughout her term, including economic expansion, better access to education, and initiatives to provide asylum to Rohingya refugees.
Political Risks for India
Extraditing Hasina would have significant geopolitical ramifications for New Delhi and would not be a purely legal action.
- Regional Influence at Stake: Hasina was instrumental in influencing Bangladesh’s foreign policy in ways that benefited India when she was in office. Strategically, extraditing her might backfire and force India to make amends with a government that might eventually turn against New Delhi.
- Credibility and Norms: Extraditing a former ally has the risk of damaging India’s standing as a morally upright nation, particularly if the ally was found guilty in a contentious trial. Observers caution that doing so might harm India’s reputation for democracy and human rights.
- Domestic Implications: There is a sizable Bangladeshi diaspora in India, and any severe action taken against Hasina could have political repercussions in several Indian states. In internal discussions over asylum, human rights, and regional policy, the matter may also become a contentious topic.
- Precedent Setting: Respecting Dhaka’s request might establish a standard for subsequent controversial extradition petitions in the area. India would want to exercise caution now in order to preserve its flexibility in future bilateral cases.
Diplomatic Tightrope: India’s Calculated Position
Legal technicalities don’t seem to be the only factors influencing India’s measured, careful response:
- Maintaining Bilateral Stability: The MEA’s focus on “constructive engagement” implies that India wishes to prevent a full-scale diplomatic breakup. It can think that communication is more important than conflict.
- Protecting Strategic Interests: India protects its long-term influence in Bangladesh by declining to respond to extradition requests right away, particularly in a volatile political climate.
- Signaling to Global Observers: Given the contentious nature of Hasina’s trial, India is probably aware that extraditing her could draw criticism from other democratic countries, the international community, and human rights organizations.
What Bangladesh Is Saying
Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is leading Bangladesh’s interim administration, which is working hard. In addition to praising the decision as a victory for justice, Yunus underlined that everyone is subject to the law, regardless of their position of authority. “
Dhaka claims that India is avoiding its responsibilities under the treaty and maintains that Hasina’s reluctance to return amounts to a “denial of justice.” The foreign ministry of Bangladesh has referred to India’s harbouring of Hasina as “unfriendly” in public remarks.
There are even more powerful voices in Bangladesh’s political arena. Asif Nazrul, a legal advisor, has cautioned that Hasina’s protracted stay in India would be viewed as a “direct challenge to justice” as well as a political slight”.
The Way Forward: What Could Happen
There isn’t a clear, quick way to extradite Hasina because of the complexity of the case. Here are some possible outcomes:
- Court Battle in India: Bangladesh might try to get an extradition order from an Indian court. However, such efforts may stagnate or fail due to the political character of the issue and treaty exceptions.
- Prolonged Diplomatic Negotiation: Negotiations between New Delhi and Dhaka can carry on for a long time. Rather than engaging in a public confrontation, India’s declared desire to “engage constructively” may be realized through quiet diplomacy.
- International Pressure: Bangladesh might mobilize support from around the world by portraying Hasina’s conviction as a matter of justice. Citing legal standards and sovereignty, India might, however, withstand such pressure.
- Domestic Legal Appeal: Citing a threat to her fundamental rights or an unfair trial in Bangladesh, Hasina or her supporters may contest the decision or the extradition request in Indian courts.
- Status Quo: It’s possible that the issue will continue in limbo as diplomatic tension simmers and Hasina remains in India, neither extradited nor completely safe.
Broader Implications for India-Bangladesh Relations
There is more than one person in this episode. It affects bilateral relations more broadly:
- Trust Deficit: India’s reluctance and Bangladesh’s insistence for extradition could increase mistrust between the two countries.
- Strategic Realignment: The geopolitical landscape of South Asia may change if Dhaka feels left down by New Delhi and continues to turn toward other regional powers like China or Pakistan.
- Rule of Law Messaging: Even when it comes to politically delicate extraditions, India’s cautious approach may be interpreted as a dedication to the rule of law and due process.
- Regional Norms: Other nations in the region may have different opinions about extradition depending on how India handles this issue, particularly if political figures are involved.
Conclusion
India seems to be adopting a totally different stance, one based on legal protections, diplomatic caution, and long-term strategic planning, whereas Bangladesh presents Hasina’s death sentence and its demand for her return as a moral and legal necessity.
Because of the prohibitions against political offences, the bilateral extradition treaty gives New Delhi a valid legal basis to oppose an instant transfer. However, India’s more measured and circumspect public stance indicates that it is reluctant to get entangled in what could turn out to be a very unstable political and diplomatic maze.
In summary, unless Dhaka is prepared to negotiate not only the courtroom but also the complex web of politics, law, and regional power relations, India is unlikely to return Hasina anytime soon, if at all.