Context and what’s at stake
The question of whether India can deny a request from Bangladesh to extradite Sheikh Hasina hinges on a blend of international treaties, Indian domestic law, and long‑standing norms about political offenses and due process. While the scenario centers on a specific, high‑profile political figure, the underlying rules apply broadly to extradition requests between countries respecting mutual legal assistance and the rule of law.
Key legal framework guiding extradition between India and Bangladesh
In many bilateral and multilateral contexts, a country can refuse to extradite for several well-established reasons. India’s primary domestic mechanism is the Extradition Act, 1962, under which a foreign country can request the surrender of a fugitive. The request must normally be backed by a treaty or executive agreement, or by a viable legal framework for extradition if a treaty exists. The Indian government will evaluate the request through a careful legal process, balancing domestic law with international obligations.
Crucially, extradition is not automatic. A treaty or legal framework typically codifies two core principles: dual criminality (the alleged offense must be a crime in both states) and extradition of persons charged with or convicted of offenses. In some cases, countries may also require that the offense charged is punishable by a certain minimum sentence in the requesting state.
<h2 The political-offense exception and crimes against humanity
A central safeguard in extradition law is the political-offense exception. Courts have long recognized that extraditing individuals for political crimes, or offenses closely tied to political actions, can threaten the state’s political stability or the rights of dissent. Whether crimes against humanity or other grave offenses fall within or outside this exception depends on the precise wording of the treaty and domestic interpretation. Many modern agreements allow extradition for serious international crimes (including crimes against humanity) absent a strong political link, but national courts retain discretion to block extradition if the alleged conduct is fundamentally political in nature or tied to persecution for political motives.
<h2 Dual criminality and the evidentiary threshold
Even with a treaty, the requesting country must show that the alleged offense is a crime under Indian law. If India deems the charges do not meet the dual-criminality standard or if the evidence presented does not meet its evidentiary thresholds, extradition can be denied. India also reserves the right to review whether the death sentence or the legal process in the requesting country adheres to fair trial standards. If the case involves a non‑refoulement risk or potential human rights violations, Indian authorities or courts may opt to refuse extradition on humanitarian or legal grounds.
<h2 Due process and judicial review
Even after a formal extradition request is made, extradition is not a ministerial act. It typically involves court oversight, where judges examine whether the request satisfies treaty requirements, whether offenses qualify under Indian law, and whether extradition would violate fundamental rights. Defenses might include concerns about political persecution, lack of a fair trial, or the possibility of an arbitrary detention in the requesting country.
<h2 Practical implications for a high‑profile case
For a figure like Sheikh Hasina, a hypothetical Indian decision to deny or delay extradition would likely trigger diplomatic discussions and potential clerical reforms in the legal process. India would assess whether Bangladesh has provided a robust, treaty‑based conduit, and whether the charges align with India’s own legal standards and international obligations. In any outcome, justice systems in both countries must navigate sovereignty, human rights considerations, and the legitimacy of due process in large‑scale, politically charged cases.
<h2 Bottom line
India can deny or stall an extradition request if treaty conditions aren’t met, if the offense lacks dual criminality, if political offense protections apply, or if due process concerns arise. Conversely, a strong treaty framework and compelling evidence could advance extradition proceedings. The exact outcome would depend on the specific legal texts, the nature of the charges, and the procedural protections in both jurisdictions.
Takeaway for readers
Extradition is a structured, legally guided process. Political salience does not override treaty obligations or the need for rigorous judicial scrutiny. When states cooperate on international crime, the law aims to balance state sovereignty with universal principles of justice and human rights.
