Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been sentenced to death in absentia by the country’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), a verdict announced on November 17, 2025, that has immediately triggered a high-stakes diplomatic confrontation with India. The tribunal, in a 458-page judgment, found Hasina guilty of “crimes against humanity” for allegedly ordering the deadly crackdown on the student-led uprising in July 2024, an event prosecutors claim resulted in over 1,400 fatalities.
The verdict, delivered while the ousted leader remains in exile in New Delhi, has been hailed as a “historic verdict” by the interim government in Dhaka, led by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus. Hours after the ruling, Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry formally demanded India’s immediate compliance with the 2013 India–Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, stating that providing refuge to a convicted criminal would be a “highly unfriendly act” and a disregard for justice.
Hasina Denounces Ruling as Political Vendetta
Sheikh Hasina, who fled Bangladesh in August 2024 following her removal from power, swiftly rejected the ruling, calling it “biased and politically motivated.” She argued that the tribunal was “rigged” and established by an unelected government with no democratic mandate, denying her a fair chance to defend herself. Hasina’s Awami League party has echoed this stance, warning of widespread political unrest and instability ahead of national elections scheduled for early next year, which the party is currently barred from contesting. She has defended her government’s actions, insisting she acted in good faith to control the disorder and rejected the claim that she ordered a “premeditated assault” on citizens.
India’s Cautious Stance and Legal Hurdles
The demand for Hasina’s extradition presents New Delhi with a significant legal and diplomatic challenge. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a guarded response, stating that India has “noted the verdict” and remains committed to the “best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability.” The MEA concluded by promising to “always engage constructively with all stakeholders,” a response that deliberately avoids committing to the extradition request.
Legal experts highlight that the 2013 treaty contains a “political offence exception” under Article 6, which allows India to refuse the request if the alleged crime is considered to be of a political character. Given the political context of the charges—stemming from a governmental crackdown during a mass protest that ultimately led to her downfall—India has strong grounds to invoke this clause. Furthermore, India can deny extradition if it believes the request is not made in good faith or if compliance would be “unjust or oppressive,” a provision that could be used due to the trial being conducted in Hasina’s absence by a new, politically adversarial administration.
The fate of Sheikh Hasina now rests with the Indian government’s ultimate decision, which must weigh its legal obligations against its long-term strategic relationship with Bangladesh, now at a critical juncture in its political transition. This extradition crisis has become the most severe test of India-Bangladesh bilateral relations in recent years.
