Can India Refuse To Extradite Sheikh Hasina? What India-Bangladesh Treaty Says

Bangladesh has formally asked India to extradite former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, but the request does not automatically require New Delhi to hand her over. India and Bangladesh have a 2013 extradition treaty, amended in 2016, that creates a general obligation to extradite people wanted for qualifying offences while also setting out circumstances in which extradition may be refused. India’s Extradition Act, 1962 provides the domestic legal framework for the process.

The issue has become more complicated since Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal convicted Hasina in absentia and sentenced her to death in November 2025 over crimes against humanity linked to the crackdown on the 2024 protests. Bangladesh renewed its demand for her return after the verdict. In April 2026, Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman reiterated the request during talks with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. In July, the Ministry of External Affairs told a parliamentary panel that Dhaka’s extradition request was being examined by the competent authorities in accordance with applicable law and established procedures.

So, can India refuse? Yes, but only where the applicable legal grounds are established. India cannot simply reject the request because Hasina is a political figure or because the case has diplomatic implications. The key questions concern the offences for which extradition is sought, the treaty’s exceptions, the circumstances of the Bangladeshi proceedings and India’s domestic extradition law.

What Exactly Is Bangladesh Asking India To Do?

Bangladesh is asking India to surrender Hasina to its authorities under the bilateral extradition treaty.

Dhaka formally sought Hasina’s return in December 2024 through a note verbale. Bangladesh renewed the demand after the International Crimes Tribunal sentenced her to death in November 2025. India confirmed receiving the request and said it was being examined through the relevant legal processes.

This is therefore not simply a question of deporting Hasina from India. Bangladesh is invoking a treaty under which one country can seek the surrender of a person who has been charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of an extraditable offence.

The 2016 amendment to Article 10(3) removed the earlier requirement for the requesting country to provide evidence of the offence when seeking an accused person's extradition. The Indian Express reported that an arrest warrant issued by a competent court, along with evidence establishing that the person sought is the person named in the warrant, is now sufficient to process such a request. The amendment simplified the process but did not remove the treaty's refusal provisions.

However, Article 10(3) concerns an accused person. Since Hasina has been convicted and sentenced, Article 10(4), which deals with convicted or sentenced persons, is relevant to any request seeking to enforce that sentence and sets out additional requirements, including requirements relating to the conviction and sentence.

What Does The India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty Say?

India and Bangladesh signed their extradition treaty in January 2013, and it entered into force later that year. The Ministry of External Affairs lists Bangladesh among the countries with which India has an extradition treaty.

Article 1 establishes the basic obligation to extradite. It covers people who have been charged with, prosecuted for, found guilty of or are wanted for enforcement of a judicially pronounced penalty for an extraditable offence. Crucially, Article 1 makes that obligation subject to the other provisions of the treaty.

Article 2 defines an extraditable offence as conduct punishable under the laws of both countries by a maximum term of imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty of at least one year. The offence need not carry the same name or classification in both countries, and the treaty also covers attempts, aiding, abetting and participation as an accomplice.

Does The Treaty Make Extradition Mandatory?

It creates a general obligation, but not an unconditional one.

Article 1 says the two countries agree to extradite persons covered by it “subject to the provisions of this Treaty”. That qualification is central to the Hasina question because the treaty itself contains provisions allowing extradition to be refused.

Article 6 provides an exception for offences of a political character. Article 7 deals with circumstances in which the requested country may refuse extradition where the person could be tried for the extradition offence in that country. Article 8 provides additional grounds, including circumstances in which extradition would be unjust or oppressive. Article 8(2) also deals with convicted persons, providing that extradition for the offence cannot take place unless the person was sentenced to imprisonment or another form of detention for four months or more.

Article 7 does not appear central to Hasina’s case because there is no indication that India intends to prosecute her for the offences in question. Articles 6 and 8 are more relevant.

India’s Extradition Act operates alongside the treaty. The treaty establishes the international obligation between the two countries, while the Act provides the domestic legal framework through which an extradition request is examined and acted upon.

That means Bangladesh cannot rely on Article 1 in isolation. India has to consider the request against the treaty’s refusal provisions and the requirements of its domestic law.

What Are The Grounds On Which India Can Refuse?

One important ground is the political-offence exception under Article 6.

Article 6(1) says extradition may be refused if the offence for which it is requested is of a political character. But Article 6(2) places clear limits on that exception. It excludes offences including murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide, kidnapping or hostage-taking, incitement to murder and specified terrorism-related, firearm and explosives offences from being treated as political offences for the purposes of the treaty.

This means the political status of the person sought is not enough. The relevant question is whether the offence for which extradition is sought falls within the treaty’s political-offence exception.

Article 8, meanwhile, covers circumstances including where the accusation was not made in good faith in the interests of justice. The provision also deals with factors such as the trivial nature of the offence, excessive delay and certain military offences.

The phrase ‘good faith’ is important. It does not mean that a politically controversial prosecution automatically fails the test. The person sought would have to establish that the circumstances surrounding the accusation meet the treaty’s threshold for refusal.

Indian domestic law provides additional safeguards. Section 29 allows the Central Government to stay proceedings and discharge a fugitive in specified circumstances, including where a request is not made in good faith, is made for political reasons, or surrender would be unjust or inexpedient. Section 31 separately bars surrender in certain circumstances, including where the offence is political or the requisition was made to try or punish the fugitive for a political offence. These provisions do not give India an unrestricted discretion to reject a request; the relevant legal conditions must be met.

Does The Political-offence Exception Apply To Hasina’s Case?

Hasina is a former political leader and her prosecution followed the fall of her government after the 2024 protests. Hasina has challenged the proceedings and the verdict. Those circumstances could be relevant to arguments about whether the accusations were made in good faith in the interests of justice.

But Article 6 is narrower than the broader political context surrounding the case. The treaty expressly excludes offences such as murder from its political-offence exception. The Indian Express has noted that this creates a significant limitation on any attempt to invoke Article 6 in relation to serious allegations against Hasina.

A case can arise out of a political conflict without every offence alleged in that case becoming a “political offence” under the treaty. Conversely, the political circumstances could still be relevant to a separate assessment under Article 8 or the corresponding provisions of Indian law.

For Hasina, therefore, alleging political motivation would not by itself settle the extradition question. India would have to examine the specific offences, the basis of the request and the circumstances of the proceedings against the applicable treaty and statutory tests.

Why Does The Death Penalty Complicate The Issue?

Hasina’s death sentence makes the consequences of extradition more serious, but it does not create an automatic treaty bar.

The India-Bangladesh extradition treaty does not state that India must refuse extradition whenever the person sought faces capital punishment in Bangladesh. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the death sentence by itself prevents India from extraditing Hasina.

The sentence could nevertheless become relevant to an argument that surrender would be unjust or oppressive, depending on the circumstances. That would require an assessment under the applicable treaty and Indian-law provisions; capital punishment is not itself listed in the India-Bangladesh treaty as an automatic ground for refusing extradition.

Because Hasina has already been sentenced to death, the nature of the sentence would form part of the circumstances surrounding any potential surrender.

But it is important not to go further than the law permits. There is no basis in the India-Bangladesh treaty for saying that India must refuse the request solely because Bangladesh imposes the death penalty. Section 34C of India’s Extradition Act provides for life imprisonment where the requesting country does not provide for the death penalty for the relevant offence. It does not automatically convert Hasina’s sentence because Bangladesh retains capital punishment.

Can India Refuse To Extradite Sheikh Hasina?

Yes — but only if a ground for refusal under the treaty or Indian law applies. The existence of an extradition request does not by itself require India to surrender Hasina.

Article 8 is more relevant to the question of whether the circumstances of the prosecution could make extradition unjust or oppressive, including where an accusation was not made in good faith in the interests of justice. Section 29 of the Extradition Act separately gives the Central Government grounds on which extradition proceedings may be stayed and the fugitive discharged. But neither provision amounts to an automatic exemption for Hasina.

For now, India has not agreed to extradite Hasina. In July 2026, the MEA told a parliamentary panel that Bangladesh’s request was still being examined by the competent authorities ‘in accordance with applicable law and established procedures’.

The short answer is this: Bangladesh can invoke the extradition treaty to seek Hasina’s return, and the treaty creates a general obligation to extradite in qualifying cases. But that obligation is expressly subject to the treaty’s refusal provisions and Indian law. India can refuse where an applicable treaty or statutory ground for refusal is established. What it cannot do is treat the treaty as either an automatic command to surrender Sheikh Hasina or an unrestricted licence to reject Bangladesh’s request.