The Extradition of Sheikh Hasina and Delhi’s Legal Pretext
One of the most consequential issues in Bangladesh’s current political and geopolitical landscape is the continued presence in India of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted from power and left the country following the violent July–August 2024 uprising, and the ongoing efforts to bring her back to Bangladesh through legal and diplomatic channels.
Recent remarks by Indian High Commissioner Dinesh Trivedi at the Bay of Bengal Conversation in Dhaka have added a new diplomatic dimension to the issue, particularly in the context of the bilateral extradition treaty signed by Bangladesh and India in 2013 and amended in 2016, as well as the continuing strains in Dhaka–New Delhi relations.
The question of Sheikh Hasina’s transfer and extradition is not merely a matter of bilateral diplomacy. It has wider implications for Bangladesh’s political stability, economic prospects and the evolving geopolitical balance in South Asia.
The Indian high commissioner has said that a structured legal process is underway regarding Sheikh Hasina’s return to Bangladesh and that the matter is also connected to judicial proceedings.
Yet, in the carefully calibrated language of diplomacy, such a statement cannot be viewed solely through a legal lens.
The absence of any specific timeline raises questions about whether New Delhi is adopting a deliberately cautious and prolonged approach while invoking judicial and legal considerations.
India’s decision to provide shelter to a former head of government amid the political upheaval of August 5, 2024 was itself a foreign policy decision.
But under international law, granting refuge or temporary shelter and responding to a formal extradition request are separate legal questions and are governed by different considerations.
The principal legal framework for Bangladesh’s request to bring Sheikh Hasina back to face judicial proceedings is the bilateral extradition treaty signed in 2013 and amended in 2016.
A close reading of the treaty reveals important areas of legal contention. Article 6(2) of the treaty limits the scope for treating serious offences as political offences.
Crimes such as murder, kidnapping and other grave offences cannot simply be shielded from extradition by characterising them as political offences.
In its report published on February 12, 2025, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights estimated that as many as 1,400 people were killed during the crackdown on the protests that began on July 1, 2024.
The report documented allegations concerning the conduct of security forces and members of the Awami League and its affiliated organisations and examined the role of the then government and its leadership.
These findings, however serious, must ultimately be tested through a fair and evidence-based judicial process.
A UN investigation or domestic inquiry cannot by itself substitute for a judicial determination of individual criminal responsibility. The credibility of the proceedings will therefore depend on evidence, due process, transparency and the independence of the judiciary.
The Bangladesh government has already formally requested India to hand Sheikh Hasina over to Bangladesh.
Yet New Delhi has not acted on the request within any publicly specified timeframe. India, for its part, has legal grounds under the extradition treaty to examine and, in certain circumstances, refuse an extradition request.
Article 8 provides grounds for refusal, including circumstances in which the requested state considers that the request has been made in bad faith or is intended to prosecute or punish a person on account of considerations of a political nature.
This provision gives India considerable room for legal scrutiny. The concern among some analysts, however, is that prolonged judicial examination could also become a means of postponing a final political decision.
That is where the issue becomes more complicated. An extradition request is not simply a matter between two governments.
It involves treaty obligations, domestic law, judicial review, diplomatic considerations and the fundamental principles of due process.
Any final decision by New Delhi will therefore have consequences extending well beyond the fate of one individual.
The uncertainty surrounding Sheikh Hasina’s status in India has also contributed to a prolonged political dilemma in Bangladesh. Political uncertainty can have direct economic consequences.
A predictable political and legal environment is essential for investment, business expansion and sustainable economic growth.
When uncertainty persists, both foreign investors and domestic entrepreneurs tend to become more cautious, potentially delaying investment and expansion decisions.
For Bangladesh, therefore, the resolution of the Sheikh Hasina issue is intertwined with the broader question of political stability and the future trajectory of Bangladesh–India relations. India, too, faces a significant test of its regional diplomacy.
For nearly two decades, New Delhi developed an exceptionally close relationship with the Awami League government.
The relationship produced substantial cooperation in areas of mutual interest, but its strongly government-to-government and party-centric character also generated resentment among sections of the Bangladeshi public.
A sustainable relationship between two sovereign neighbours cannot rest on the fortunes of a particular political party or individual leader.
India’s long-term interests in Bangladesh would arguably be better served by a state-to-state relationship based on mutual respect, sovereign equality and engagement with whichever political forces emerge through legitimate democratic and constitutional processes.
The political narrative that Sheikh Hasina and other senior leaders of the Awami League will return to Bangladesh in December has also generated renewed expectations among supporters of the banned party and among individuals who benefited from the previous political order.
Some appear to believe that Sheikh Hasina could return and reclaim the kind of political dominance she once exercised.
Such expectations, however, overlook the profound changes Bangladesh has experienced since July–August 2024.
The uprising fundamentally altered the country’s political landscape as well as the political consciousness of a large section of the population.
The UN findings and domestic investigations may provide important evidence and context, but they must be subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny.
The ultimate test of the rule of law is not whether a particular person is convicted or acquitted; it is whether the process through which justice is delivered is credible, impartial and evidence-based.
The same principle should guide India’s response to Bangladesh’s extradition request.
New Delhi has legitimate legal and diplomatic interests to consider, but the process should not become an indefinite political holding pattern. Nor should legal provisions be used selectively to avoid confronting the substantive questions raised by the extradition request.
Bangladesh–India relations also need to move beyond the politics of dependence and the perception of a “big brother–little brother” relationship. Bangladesh does not seek confrontation with India.
What it seeks is a stable and friendly relationship based on mutual respect, sovereign equality, reciprocity and respect for territorial integrity.
The experience of the past two decades should offer an important lesson to both countries: bilateral relations become fragile when they are perceived as being built around a particular leader or political party rather than around the interests and aspirations of the two peoples.
Whatever ultimately happens at the diplomatic table over Sheikh Hasina’s extradition, the larger issue is about the primacy of the state and the rule of law over any individual.
A political leader may cross a border and return to a country, but the political consciousness created by a historic national experience cannot simply be reversed.
Bangladesh’s future cannot ultimately be determined by the preferences of another country or the interests of a particular individual.
It must be shaped by the democratic aspirations of its people, its constitutional institutions, and the rule of law and the dignity of the sovereign state.
(Writer: Woashim Farooque, Columnist & Analyst)
