Inside the Hasina Extradition Battle: The Law, Politics and Bharat’s Next Move

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 19th  November: A dramatic diplomatic and legal drama has erupted between Dhaka and New Delhi after Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal convicted and sentenced its ousted prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, to death — and formally asked Bharat to hand her over. At first glance the demand looks straightforward: a requesting state seeks a fugitive and expects a treaty partner to comply. But when the accused is a former head of government, the sentence is capital, and the trial was held in absentia amid claims of political targeting and a harsh crackdown at home, the decision for New Delhi is anything but mechanical. Bharat’s response so far — framed as “legal and judicial examination” rather than an immediate political obligation — signals that New Delhi recognizes the gravity and the discretion built into extradition law.

Legal tools, not automatons: how Bharat’s law and the treaty work

Bharat is not a mere postbox for extradition requests. The Extradition Act, 1962 gives the central government broad authority to scrutinise demands for surrender and to refuse extradition on enumerated grounds: if the request appears frivolous or made in bad faith; if the alleged offence is political; or if extradition would be unjust in the circumstances. The law empowers ministers to pause or halt proceedings and insists on guarantees that the person will be tried only for the offences specified — a critical safeguard when the penalty sought is grave.

Bharat’s bilateral treaty with Bangladesh adds further structure. It contains a “political offence” exception permitting refusal where the alleged crime is essentially political, while carving out serious violent crimes from that protection. The treaty also contemplates the option for Bharat to try the person domestically instead of surrendering them, and it builds in procedural hurdles — questions of timeliness, of good faith, and of whether the request is trivially motivated — all of which give New Delhi legal space to say no.

Politics, process and the problem of trials in absentia

Beyond legal text lie questions of process and context. Human-rights groups and international observers have expressed concern about trials held in absentia and about proceedings that take place under an interim government which critics say benefited politically from the ouster of the accused. Allegations of a sweeping security clampdown in Bangladesh after the unrest and the conviction raise the stakes: extradition that effectively hands someone back to a process widely seen as politicized would expose Bharat to reputational and legal headaches at home and abroad. New Delhi’s careful public posture — calling this a judicial matter and promising consultation — reflects the need to balance treaty obligations with commitments to fair trial standards.

Practical discretion: where Bharat can say no

Putting the components together, Bharat has several defensible routes to refuse. If New Delhi’s review concludes that the prosecution is politically motivated, that the trial in absentia lacked minimum fair-trial guarantees, or that Bangladesh cannot or will not provide assurances limiting the charges and treatment, Bharat can lawfully decline surrender. It can demand robust assurances — including that the death penalty will not be applied — or insist on revisiting the case through its own courts. The political sensitivity of sending a former prime minister back to face execution gives New Delhi both a legal and a moral lever. Recent reporting suggests Bharat is likely to err on the side of caution, mindful of domestic law and international scrutiny.

Law must be the shield against politicized retribution

In situations like this, legal systems are tested not only for their letter but for their courage. If Bharat were to return Hasina without ironclad guarantees of a fair retrial, it would risk abetting punitive politics; if it refuses, it risks diplomatic rupture with a neighbour already fraught with mistrust. My view is that the rule of law should be the deciding compass. Bharat’s refusal — if based on transparent legal findings and conditioned on fair-trial guarantees — will be defensible in both law and conscience. Conversely, any decision perceived as purely political or transactional will deepen cynicism about justice in the region.

A sovereign choice with global resonance

The extradition request places New Delhi at a crossroads where treaty text, domestic law, human-rights norms and strategic ties intersect. Bharat clearly has the legal means to refuse or condition any handover — especially where political offence exceptions, questions over due process, and the prospect of capital punishment are involved. How New Delhi navigates consultations, what assurances it demands, and whether it makes public the legal rationales will determine not only the fate of one politician but also the credibility of institutions charged with upholding justice in a turbulent neighborhood. For now, the answer is: yes — Bharat can legally refuse, but whether it should and how it justifies that refusal will define the region’s political and moral landscape for years to come.