India may legally refuse Bangladesh’s extradition request for Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Kamal, despite a death sentence handed down by the ICT. Legal experts cite treaty exceptions, human rights concerns, and constitutional safeguards amid escalating unrest across Bangladesh.
India now faces a politically charged and legally complex decision as the interim government of Bangladesh, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, formally renews its demand for the extradition of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal. Both leaders, currently in exile in India since the dramatic collapse of the Awami League government in August 2024, were sentenced to death on Monday by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) for alleged crimes against humanity committed during the July 2024 student uprising.
However, leading Indian legal experts emphasize that India possesses strong legal grounds to decline the request, citing both domestic law and international treaty obligations that prioritize human rights, fair-trial norms, and constitutional protections.
Bangladesh Seeks Immediate Extradition—India Signals Legal Discretion
Speaking in Dhaka after the verdict, Asif Nazrul, the interim government’s legal advisor, confirmed that Bangladesh would send another formal letter to New Delhi seeking Hasina’s extradition.
But India is not legally bound to comply.
According to Aaditya Bhatt of Ahmedabad-based Bhatt & Joshi Associates, Section 31 of the Extradition Act, 1962, combined with Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the India–Bangladesh Extradition Treaty (2013, amended 2016), provides a robust basis for India to reject the request.
Bhatt argues that while Article 1 of the treaty establishes a general obligation to extradite individuals accused of serious crimes, “this obligation is not absolute and is subject to critical exceptions embedded in the treaty framework itself.”
These exceptions—designed to maintain human rights standards—have become central to the current dispute.
Hasina Rejects Charges as Politically Motivated
In a written statement from her undisclosed location in India, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina dismissed the allegations entirely, calling the ICT’s verdict “biased, fabricated, and politically motivated.”
Hasina maintained that she never ordered security forces to fire on protesting students, contradicting the tribunal’s findings that placed command responsibility squarely on her administration.
The ICT, which was originally established to prosecute atrocities from the 1971 Liberation War, has long been criticized both inside and outside Bangladesh for issues ranging from lack of transparency to politicized verdicts. Over time, the tribunal’s jurisdiction has expanded in ways that critics say blur the lines between legal proceedings and political retribution.
Hasina’s supporters argue that Monday’s judgment reflects not justice, but a deliberate effort by the Yunus-led interim government to eliminate the Awami League from Bangladesh’s political landscape ahead of the country’s next democratic transition.
Legal Concerns: Fast-Tracked Trial, In-Absentia Sentencing, and Political Context
Indian legal analysts highlight several red flags in the tribunal’s process:
-
Trial in absentia of Hasina and Kamal
-
Accelerated hearings lasting only 28 working days
-
Lack of independent legal representation for the accused
-
Absence of international observers or impartial monitoring
-
Capital punishment in a politically sensitive case
-
The interim government’s public characterization of accountability as a political mandate
“These issues collectively raise serious concerns regarding fair-trial guarantees and judicial independence,” Bhatt observed.
He stressed that Article 8 of the extradition treaty clearly states that extradition is not mandatory if:
-
The request is not made “in good faith in the interests of justice”, or
-
The accused faces torture, cruel treatment, or a judicial process below international standards.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which both India and Bangladesh are signatories, mandates stringent checks on extradition involving death sentences or politically motivated prosecutions.
Bhatt emphasized the relevance of Soering v. United Kingdom, a landmark European Court of Human Rights case that established a state’s obligation to refuse extradition where there is a real risk of a “flagrant denial of justice.”
India’s Constitutional Safeguards Apply to Foreign Nationals
India’s legal position is further reinforced by constitutional jurisprudence.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—a fundamental right—applies to all “persons,” including foreign nationals. It mandates that no one may be deprived of life or personal liberty except through fair, just, and reasonable procedures.
Indian courts have consistently held that:
-
Extradition must withstand independent judicial scrutiny.
-
Foreign proceedings must meet basic fairness standards.
-
The death penalty requires heightened due diligence.
Given the political turbulence and due-process concerns surrounding the Bangladesh tribunal, Indian courts could be compelled to delay, question, or ultimately deny the extradition request.
Bangladesh Erupts After Verdict: Dhanmondi Turns Into a Battleground
While the legal battle unfolds in New Delhi, the streets of Dhaka began to convulse with tension and anger.
The Dhanmondi 32 area—symbolic as the location of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s demolished residence—became the epicenter of violent clashes within hours of the verdict’s announcement.
Witnesses reported:
-
Over 100 sound grenades detonated
-
Continuous tear gas shelling
-
Clashes between protesters and security forces
-
Army deployment to regain control
By late evening, at least 50 people were injured, including police and military personnel.
Protesters attempted to bring in construction equipment to tear down the remaining structure at Dhanmondi 32, intensifying confrontations. Law enforcement blocked roads, shutting down Mirpur Road, Kalabagan, Panthapath, and several surrounding neighborhoods.
Square Hospital temporarily closed its gates due to repeated explosions nearby, leaving anxious relatives stranded outside as the unrest raged on.
Local resident Sumaiya Afrin described the situation as “terrifying,” saying even patients inside the hospital were shaken by the continuous blasts.
By nightfall, Dhanmondi resembled a war zone—barricaded streets, charred debris, scattered stones, and armored vehicles dominating the urban landscape.
Protests Spread to Gopalganj, Awami League Stronghold
The violence was not confined to Dhaka.
In Gopalganj, the political heartland of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League, banned party activists blocked the Dhaka–Khulna Highway, chanting slogans denouncing the verdict.
Chhatra League members marched through Tungipara, Hasina’s ancestral home, vowing resistance.
Police temporarily dispersed the crowds, but blockades reappeared throughout the afternoon. Tree trunks and debris were used to obstruct roads as tempers flared.
Local leaders described the verdict as an attempt to “erase the political legacy of Sheikh Hasina.”
Inside the Tribunal: How Hasina and Kamal Received the Death Penalty
The ICT verdict, spanning 453 pages, accused Hasina, Kamal, and former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun of crimes against humanity including:
-
Ordering excessive force
-
Abetting drone and helicopter surveillance
-
Using live ammunition
-
Failing to restrain security forces
The tribunal claimed Hasina incited violence through provocative statements, citing a press conference where she questioned whether “Rajakars’ grandchildren” deserved government jobs.
Another crucial piece of evidence was a recorded phone conversation allegedly instructing law enforcement to “shoot protesters anywhere they can.”
Mamun, who confessed and testified against Hasina, received a drastically reduced sentence of five years and was later pardoned for “full and truthful disclosure.”
This cooperation with the tribunal has led to accusations that the proceedings were politically orchestrated.
Hasina Calls Verdict Product of a “Rigged Tribunal”
In a scathing statement, Hasina attacked the interim government, calling it “undemocratic and extremist.”
She alleged that:
-
The tribunal was “rigged”
-
The proceedings were designed to eliminate her from politics
-
The interim government’s intent was “brazen and murderous”
-
The ICT was being used to distract from the failures of the Yunus administration
Hasina warned that millions of Bangladeshis “will not be fooled,” predicting an intensified struggle for democratic restoration.
Her supporters argue that the ICT has effectively been weaponized to dismantle the Awami League and consolidate the interim regime’s control.
International Implications and India’s Delicate Position
The extradition request places India in a diplomatically sensitive position.
On one hand, Bangladesh is a key regional partner. On the other, India must uphold its own legal standards—with the added complexity of hosting Hasina, who was historically one of New Delhi’s closest allies.
India must weigh:
-
Human rights concerns
-
Domestic legal obligations
-
Regional stability
-
Political optics
-
Strategic bilateral ties
Refusing extradition could strain relations, but complying could violate constitutional protections.
Analysts believe India is likely to adopt a cautious, legally grounded approach rather than a politically driven one.
Legal and Moral Questions Loom Large
As Bangladesh plunges deeper into political instability and violent unrest, India’s decision on the extradition of Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Kamal remains pivotal.
The legal framework appears to favor refusal, but the geopolitical stakes are far from simple.
With protests intensifying, the interim government digging in, and Hasina framing the verdict as a political assassination attempt, the subcontinent may be entering one of its most volatile moments since Bangladesh’s democratic transition in the early 1990s.
| Also Read: Dhaka violence escalates after tribunal verdict against Sheikh Hasina |
| Also Read: Bangladesh Under Fire: Yunus Government accused |
India’s role—as both a regional stabilizer and the temporary refuge of Bangladesh’s longest-serving leader—will shape the next chapter of this unfolding crisis.
