Sheikh Hasina Convicted: Does New Delhi Have To Extradite Her To Dhaka? Here’s What India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty Says | World News

New Delhi: Bangladesh’s foreign office has asked India to repatriate former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina immediately after her conviction by the International Crimes Court. The interim government in Dhaka insists the request falls within India’s “obligatory duty” in the bilateral extradition treaty. But the legal situation is much more complex, and the agreement itself creates a broad buffer protecting New Delhi against any immediate action.

Officials and former diplomats familiar with the agreement say India is not obliged to extradite the former prime minister because the agreement provides a broad exemption for crimes of a political nature. They say extradition was never a diplomatic mandate but a judicial procedure and such a process must begin in Indian courts.

According to this view, for the matter to reach the Indian court, Bangladesh must first make a formal extradition request. Only after the Indian court examines the charges and decides on them can the Government of India take action on the request. Until that point, there is no binding legal obligation for India to hand it over.

Officials also underline that Bangladesh has not initiated the official process so far. They recall that Hasina had been in India since last August when she was sacked and even then Bangladesh had demanded her return. At that time, India advised Dhaka to initiate the extradition procedure through legal means. He was not a convicted person when he arrived in India and came by his own decision and not through any invitation or arrangement by New Delhi.

Even after his conviction, the legal threshold remains unchanged. Extradition can only take place if the requesting state submits the necessary documents to the Indian authorities. The nature of the government making the request also complicates matters because the interim administration in Dhaka is seen by many observers as unconstitutional. It is unclear whether this interim authority is in a position to make a valid request.

The Clause That Shaped India’s Response

The key hurdle lies in Article 6 of the 2013 India-Bangladesh extradition treaty. This regulation allows India to refuse extradition if the crime for which a person is sought is “political in nature”.

Many of the accusations against Hasina, including those related to the government’s handling of student unrest, fall into a category that legal experts often describe as politically motivated.

The agreement lists crimes that do not qualify as political in nature: murder, manslaughter, and acts that constitute crimes under multilateral agreements to which both countries are parties.

Another safeguard is contained in Article 8, which allows the requested country to refuse extradition if the charge is unjust or oppressive because of its frivolity, the passage of time, or because the charge is not made in good faith.

Hearing Questions

Those familiar with the situation in Bangladesh also note serious concerns about the way the trial was conducted. They say the judiciary was affected before the trial began: Supreme Court judges were allegedly dismissed, new judges were brought in, and the court continued with a reconstituted structure.

Observers have questioned how fair and independent such a process could be.

Hasina was accused of ordering actions that led to deaths during the suppression of the protests. Critics argue that such allegations lack the standards normally required to convict a sitting head of government, especially one who is nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime.

Implications for Bangladesh’s Political Future

The political situation in Bangladesh broadens the context. Many believe that a credible national election cannot be held unless the Awami League is allowed to participate. With the party’s registration currently suspended, Bangladesh risks entering an election cycle in which the largest political force is barred from contesting. In such a scenario, questions arise about the inclusiveness and legitimacy of future elections.

On Monday, the International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Hasina to death for “crimes against humanity” and called her the “mastermind and chief architect” of last year’s violent crackdown on student protesters, in which hundreds were killed.

Although the decision has intensified Dhaka’s demand for extradition, the legal framework within which India operates has not changed. The agreement, the political nature of the accusations, the questionable legitimacy of the interim government, and the necessity of a formal judicial process combine to create a situation in which New Delhi has no obligation to act immediately.