Bangladesh has formally sent all necessary documents to India to request the extradition of Sheikh Hasina and is prepared to issue a reminder when deemed necessary, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mohammad Rafiqul Alam confirmed on February 13.
However, the extradition request – conveyed through a note verbale in late December – remains unanswered by India. The Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi has maintained a reserved stance and, despite repeated inquiries, has refrained from making any further comments beyond an initial acknowledgment of receipt.
While Bangladesh is legally entitled to seek Hasina’s return under the 2013 extradition treaty – which was amended in 2016 to expedite the process – the geopolitical and diplomatic implications remain complex.
If India did agree to extradite Hasina, the process would unfold through a series of steps subject to both the letter of the India‑Bangladesh Extradition Treaty and the harsh realities of international diplomacy.
“While the technicalities are largely governed by the extradition treaty, the political, diplomatic, and human rights considerations would make it an incredibly complex and sensitive issue,” said Dr. Sangeeta Taak, an academic and legal scholar who serves as an assistant professor at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law in Punjab.
The process begins with Bangladesh submitting a formal extradition request to India, Taak said. This request must comprehensively detail the charges against Hasina and be buttressed by a robust collection of supporting documents, including judicial orders, arrest warrants, and other evidentiary materials.
Taak further underscored that “the request must also include [confirmation] that the trial shall be fair in Bangladesh and it shall not be biased.”
In other words, beyond simply enumerating alleged crimes, the request must offer assurances that Hasina would not be subjected to a trial tainted by political partiality – a critical requirement that India would need to verify before even considering extradition.
Notably, Bangladesh has already fulfilled this requirement. But what comes next?
Once the formal request is lodged, Indian authorities – primarily the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – are supposed to launch a thorough review to ascertain whether all treaty obligations are met.
Taak explained, “As India already has an extradition treaty with Bangladesh, the Indian government shall review and ensure that the treaty of extradition is properly complied with, as per the agreement.”
This review process would involve determining whether the charges brought against Hasina are legally recognized as criminal offenses in both nations, a concept known as dual criminality. Indian authorities would also have to examine whether any of the charges fall within exemptions for political, military, or religious offenses – a determination that could ultimately provide grounds for rejecting the extradition request.
Even if the initial administrative review is favorable, the matter would not end there. The extradition request would next be subject to judicial review in India, where specialized extradition courts would scrutinize its legality and merits.
“India would also make judicial review of extradition,” Taak continued. “The special courts designed for extradition in India would examine the legality and merits of the extradition request. If the court finds that there is a credible threat of political prosecution, it may block the extradition.”
This judicial safeguard is essential to prevent the misuse of extradition laws for political retribution, ensuring that any decision to hand over Hasina is firmly grounded in the rule of law.
Should the courts and the executive branch in India ultimately decide to proceed with the extradition, the next step would be the issuance of an arrest warrant by competent authorities – either by local police or by central law enforcement agencies.
“After her arrest, Sheikh Hasina would likely be held in a secure facility while arrangements are made for her extradition,” Taak said. “The law typically allows for her to remain in detention pending formal proceedings.”
Given Hasina’s prominence and the likely high level of public attention, her detention would be managed with exceptional security measures to prevent any disruption or escape attempts.
The final step in the extradition process would be the physical transfer of Hasina from Indian custody to Bangladeshi authorities. This stage would require a meticulously coordinated effort between the two governments, ensuring that all legal and diplomatic protocols are adhered to, Taak said.
She clarified, “After this scrutiny, the physical transfer of Sheikh Hasina from Indian custody to Bangladeshi shall be done… The handover would be done in a manner agreed upon by both parties, typically at an international border or airport.”
In practice, this might involve a government-chartered flight departing from an international airport in India and landing in Dhaka, or a transfer at a designated border crossing like the Petrapole-Benapole checkpoint.
Yet, even as these legal and procedural steps are delineated, the extradition of a former prime minister is bound to be highly politicized.
Taak noted that “political leaders often enjoy certain immunities and protections, making extradition more complicated.”
She added, “Human rights organizations might intervene, arguing that Sheikh Hasina could face unfair treatment or potential harm in Bangladesh, which could lead to an international legal challenge.”
Such intervention could further complicate the process, adding pressure on India to ensure that all human rights safeguards are in place.
Moreover, Hasina herself “could seek asylum in India, claiming persecution in Bangladesh, which would complicate the extradition process further,” Taak concluded.
Beyond these legal complexities, India’s final decision – whether to comply with Bangladesh’s request or deny it – will surely have far-reaching consequences.
Agreeing to Dhaka’s demand could strain India’s diplomatic relations with other nations wary of perceived political retribution, making Hasina’s extradition seem like a non-starter.
However, a straightforward refusal too might also create more chaos than anticipated, especially with the recently published U.N. report on the Monsoon Uprising, which implicated Hasina and her party leaders, as well as law enforcement agencies, in crimes against humanity.
Both agreeing to and refusing the extradition request will carry consequences for New Delhi. That’s precisely why remaining silent, and keeping a wait-and-see stance on Hasina’s extradition, seems like the most probable option for India – at least for the time being.