Bangladesh’s interim administration has formally asked India to hand over former prime minister Sheikh Hasina and ex-home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal after a special tribunal sentenced both to death for alleged “crimes against humanity.”
In its statement, Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry argued that the India-Bangladesh extradition treaty makes it New Delhi’s “obligatory duty” to return individuals convicted of such offences. It also warned that providing shelter to people found guilty of crimes against humanity would be viewed as an “unfriendly act” and a dismissal of justice.
What the extradition treaty says
India and Bangladesh signed a bilateral extradition treaty in 2013 to streamline cooperation against crime and terrorism. Under this agreement, either country can seek the return of an accused or convicted person who has taken refuge across the border.
For extradition to apply, the offence in question must carry at least a one-year jail term in both countries. This covers serious crimes like murder, terror-related acts, violent offences, kidnapping, and also financial crimes. Assisting or aiding the commission of such offences also qualifies.
When can extradition be rejected?
The treaty lays out a few situations where extradition may be refused.
According to Article 6(1), political offences are grounds for denial. However, Article 6(2) clearly states that serious crimes such as murder, terrorism, kidnapping, and other violent acts do not count as political offences.
Hasina has been charged with murder, attempted murder, torture, and related acts — all classified as non-political under the treaty.
Article 8 provides additional safeguards. Extradition can be denied if:
• the charge is considered too minor,
• the case is time-barred,
• the request appears to be made in bad faith or for non-legal motives, or
• the offence is purely military in nature and not a civilian crime.
These checks exist to prevent misuse of the extradition process.
What India’s Extradition Act says
Alongside the treaty, India’s Extradition Act of 1962 governs how fugitive offenders can be surrendered. The Act lists similar restrictions:
• no extradition for political offences or politically motivated prosecution,
• the request cannot proceed if the case is time-barred,
• the requesting nation must guarantee that the person will face trial only for the offence for which extradition is approved, and
• India cannot extradite someone who is already facing trial or serving a sentence within the country until those proceedings end.
The role of Indian courts
India’s constitutional protections add another layer. Article 21 ensures that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Indian courts have repeatedly interpreted this right to apply to foreign nationals as well.
The judiciary has held that extradition or deportation cannot violate fundamental rights. Courts have also recognised the international principle of non-refoulement, which bars sending individuals back to countries where they could face death, torture or inhumane treatment.
In the 1998 Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India case, the Gujarat High Court protected two Iraqi asylum seekers from deportation, stressing that Article 21 aligns with global humanitarian norms, including the ICCPR.
India’s reaction so far
India has acknowledged the Bangladeshi court’s verdict but has not commented on any extradition request. The Ministry of External Affairs said it remains committed to supporting “peace, democracy, inclusion and stability” in Bangladesh and will continue engaging constructively with all stakeholders.
