Dhaka Wants Hasina Back, But Won't Let Her Return: Inside The Standoff Over Her Passport

A passport application and an extradition request now sit at the heart of Sheikh Hasina’s uncertain return to Bangladesh. The former prime minister wants fresh travel and identity documents to make her way back from India, where she has lived since being ousted in August 2024. Dhaka, however, has little appetite for an ordinary homecoming. It wants New Delhi to hand her over under the bilateral extradition treaty, so that her return is treated as a matter between two governments, not a personal journey arranged on Hasina’s terms. Behind the dispute lies a deeper anxiety: a former leader sentenced to death could return not merely as a defendant, but as a political force capable of drawing her supporters back into the streets.

Hasina’s lawyers at London-based Matrix Chambers wrote to the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi on 9 November seeking a new passport and national identity card. Her existing documents had been revoked after she fled the country. The letter invoked her Bangladeshi nationality and international human rights obligations, asking that the applications be processed expeditiously. Hasina has said she intends to return in December and surrender before a court. But the government rejected the request, with State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humaiun Kobir saying Bangladesh would not issue a passport to someone it considers a convicted fugitive.

The stakes are severe. In November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Hasina to death in absentia in a crimes against humanity case over the crackdown on protesters during the 2024 uprising. The United Nations has estimated that as many as 1,400 people were killed. Hasina denies wrongdoing and has rejected the legitimacy of the proceedings. Her passport and national identity document were revoked during the interim administration that followed her ouster, leaving her proposed return caught between a criminal verdict, a diplomatic demand and a denied request for documents.

Why Dhaka Insists On The Extradition Treaty

The distinction between extradition and voluntary return is central to Dhaka’s position. Under the 2013 India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, amended in 2016, the two countries agreed to surrender people charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of extraditable offences, subject to the treaty’s conditions. A request must pass through diplomatic channels. For a person already convicted and sentenced, the requesting state must provide a certificate of conviction and sentence, along with information about the outstanding punishment. The treaty also provides for the transfer of a person through an agreed point of departure.

For Bangladesh, this is not simply a question of how Hasina crosses the border. An extradition would make her return the outcome of a formal state-to-state process, with Dhaka seeking to enforce the judicial proceedings against her. A voluntary return using a newly issued passport, by contrast, would allow Hasina to present herself as a citizen exercising her right to come home and surrender. That distinction matters to a government that has repeatedly described her as a fugitive and insisted that she must face the consequences of the tribunal’s verdict. Kobir has argued that an extradition treaty is already in place and that Bangladesh does not need to treat her as an ordinary traveller.

The treaty does not, however, make extradition automatic. Article 6 allows refusal when an offence is political in character, although it specifically excludes offences including murder and culpable homicide from that category. Article 8 also provides grounds for refusal, including where an accusation has not been made in good faith in the interests of justice. The 2016 amendment simplified the process by removing the requirement to provide evidence that would justify committal for trial in the requested country, but the treaty retains safeguards and grounds for refusal. The legal question, therefore, is not settled merely because Dhaka has invoked the agreement.

A Return That Could Become A Political Spectacle

There is another reason the passport request has unsettled Dhaka. Hasina’s return could become a public political event in a country where the Awami League remains banned and was barred from contesting the February 2026 general election. Thousands of party members have faced arrest, while several senior leaders remain abroad. Political analysts cited by Reuters say the government does not want her homecoming to turn into a spectacle that could galvanise supporters and reignite tensions. A large public mobilisation around a former prime minister facing a death sentence would force the government to manage both a security challenge and a politically charged legal moment.

The Awami League, meanwhile, has signalled that the absence of documents will not necessarily stop Hasina. The party has said she will return in December, with or without travel papers. Her aide Abu Obaidha Arin described the passport application as a step towards reclaiming her rights as a Bangladeshi citizen. Hasina herself has said she wants to return and surrender, even as she has acknowledged the possibility of arrest or death. The precise route she might take if the passport request remains rejected has not been disclosed.

The prospect of her return also raises questions about the government's response. If she arrives voluntarily, Dhaka would still have to decide how to take her into custody and proceed with the sentence. If she is extradited, the government can present the handover as the fulfilment of a legal demand made to India. Either route carries political risks: a highly visible arrest could draw supporters, while an attempt to prevent public mobilisation could invite accusations of suppressing political activity. Hasina’s own stated intention to stand by party workers adds another dimension to the uncertainty.

Extradition Dispute And The Future Of Delhi-Dhaka Ties

For India, the request has become a test of how to balance treaty obligations, legal scrutiny and its relationship with a neighbouring government. New Delhi has not handed Hasina over. In July, Spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, Randhir Jaiswal said there had been no change in India’s approach and that any extradition matter would be treated as a legal issue. A parliamentary report published in July recorded the government’s response that the request was being examined by the competent authorities under applicable law and established procedures. India has therefore not announced a final decision, even as Dhaka continues to press for her return.

The dispute is unfolding against a relationship that both governments have reasons to preserve. India and Bangladesh share deep historical, economic, cultural and security links, but Hasina’s presence in India has become a persistent irritant in bilateral ties. A parliamentary committee has urged New Delhi to sustain engagement with the new government led by Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, while the Ministry of External Affairs has reiterated its support for a stable, peaceful and inclusive Bangladesh. The committee has also noted that India’s extradition request assessment remains pending.

The passport may be only a document, but the argument over it exposes a much larger contest over who controls the terms of Hasina’s return. Dhaka wants a handover that reinforces its legal and political authority. Hasina wants to come back as a citizen prepared to face the courts. New Delhi, meanwhile, has left the extradition question unresolved. Until that position changes, the route home remains blocked by more than the absence of a passport: it runs through a treaty, a death sentence and the unsettled politics of a country still living with the aftermath of her fall.