Dhaka presses Delhi to extradite Sheikh Hasina following tribunal death sentence

On Monday, 17 November 2025, at around 17:00 local time in Dhaka, the International Crimes Tribunal‑1 (ICT-1) in Bangladesh handed down a death sentence in absentia to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Interior Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, accusing them of crimes against humanity during last year’s brutal crackdown on student protests. Al Jazeera+2PBS+2

Shortly after the verdict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh issued a pointed statement: the government of India is obliged under the bilateral extradition treaty to hand over Hasina and Kamal, and any country that shelters them would be acting in a “highly unfriendly” manner and undermining justice. Hindustan Times+2www.ndtv.com+2

In the statement, Dhaka underscored that providing refuge to individuals convicted of crimes against humanity would signal a “disregard for justice.” Hindustan Times+1

At the same time, New Delhi issued a short release acknowledging the verdict, saying India “remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including peace, democracy, inclusion and stability,” but without committing to extradition. AP News

What led to the tribunal verdict

The tribunal found that during nationwide student protests in July–August 2024, the Hasina government orchestrated a crackdown in which hundreds (and according to some estimates over a thousand) civilians lost their lives. The Economic Times+1 Sheikh Hasina fled to India on 5 August 2024 amid mounting unrest and has since been based in Delhi under Indian protection. easternmirrornagaland.com

The interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus took office following Hasina’s ouster and set up the tribunal to try former top leaders. The verdict is being framed domestically in Bangladesh as a landmark moment of accountability — though critics warn of due-process gaps. Wikipedia+1

Why Bangladesh is pressing India now

By demanding immediate hand-over of Hasina and Kamal, Dhaka signals that the verdict is not merely symbolic: it expects India to act on the treaty and deliver the convicted individuals. The turn of phrase “providing refuge would be highly unfriendly” underscores that Bangladesh views any delay or refusal as a diplomatic affront.

India’s hesitation stems from several complex factors: its deep historical ties with Hasina’s party, political sensitivities in Delhi about offering or withdrawing asylum, regional diplomacy concerns, and the fact that Hasina entered India prior to the verdict and has been shielded.

For Bangladesh’s interim government, the window is narrow: an election is expected in February 2026, and they wish to demonstrate strong action now to show rulings are enforced, not just pronounced. easternmirrornagaland.com+1

What happens next

• India’s response: While India has recognised the verdict, no commitment to extradition has been made publicly. Delhi now faces a balancing act between treaty obligations and its diplomatic alliance with Hasina.

• Extradition process: If India agrees, legal formalities under the 1974 extradition treaty (or successor arrangements) must be followed: formal request, review by Indian courts, defence rights for Hasina.

• Domestic implications in Bangladesh: The interim government uses the ruling to bolster its legitimacy, but critics say the tribunal lacked full transparency and that the death penalty raises human-rights concerns. The Times of India+1

• Regional diplomacy: This issue adds tension to Bangladesh-India relations. If India resists extradition, Dhaka may raise the matter in multilateral forums or revise its bilateral approach.

Why this matters

For Bangladesh, the verdict and subsequent demand signal that even former heads of government can be held accountable once power shifts. For India, the case puts its diplomatic neutrality to test: whether strategic ties override legal obligations or whether rule-of-law principles take precedence.

Equally, for the broader region and the global pattern of transitional justice, the case highlights the interplay between domestic legal processes, extradition treaties, asylum politics and international human-rights norms.