India has maintained an uninterrupted silence after Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal handed down a death sentence to ex-PM Sheikh Hasina on charges of crimes against humanity. 

But senior Indian officials have privately indicated to the BBC that the verdict has not altered New Delhi’s position — nor is there any question of handing her over to Dhaka.

Since Hasina arrived in India on 5 August 2024, Delhi’s stance has remained unchanged: she is being given temporary shelter purely for her “protection and security” amid an exceptional situation. Even after Sunday’s announcement of the tribunal’s ruling, India sees no reason to revisit the decision to host her.

This raises an immediate question: what happens now to Bangladesh’s formal request for her return, sent under the countries’ extradition treaty? India acknowledged receiving Dhaka’s note verbale within two days last December, but has not commented publicly since. With the tribunal’s judgment now out, officials accept that Delhi will face renewed pressure to speak.

In private, Indian foreign and home ministry officials have long argued that loopholes in the extradition treaty offer ample room to delay or reject such a request. If needed, India could still rely on those provisions.

A Changed Landscape

When Bangladesh first sought Hasina’s return last December, the July massacre case had only just begun. Charges had not yet been framed, let alone taken to verdict. Meanwhile, political violence in Bangladesh was intensifying — senior Awami League leaders were being booked in sweeping murder cases and figures such as Dipu Moni, Anisul Huq and Salman F Rahman were assaulted in or near court premises.

Indian officials repeatedly cited these incidents as evidence that Hasina could face political vengeance rather than a fair trial if returned. For them, this made extradition untenable.

Today, however, Hasina stands convicted of genocide in a Bangladeshi court. As a fugitive and a sentenced offender, India will undoubtedly face sharper questions over why she continues to be sheltered. Delhi will likely have to justify its position soon — but officials insist the fundamental stance remains unchanged.

Treaty's Built-In Escape Routes

The 2013 extradition treaty allows India to reject requests for offences deemed “political in nature”. A range of crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance, manslaughter, bombings and terrorism — are exempt from being classified as political. Hasina faces charges spanning murder, genocide, enforced disappearance and torture, suggesting at first glance that the political-offence clause might not apply.

A 2016 amendment further simplified extradition by allowing arrest warrants standing as sufficient grounds for a request, without the need to submit detailed evidence.

Yet the treaty contains other provisions that India can invoke. A request may be rejected if the receiving state believes the charges were not brought “in good faith” or are not purely in the interest of justice. Extradition can also be refused if the offences are “military offences” outside standard criminal law.

India could still argue that Hasina has not received — and will not receive — fair or impartial justice in Bangladesh, citing the clause allowing rejection when charges appear politically motivated or lacking good faith. Many observers in Delhi expect this to be the route India takes.

In short, India may soon have to explain why it continues to host Sheikh Hasina — but that explanation is unlikely to lead to her return.

 Source: Source BBC Bangla