Around an hour and a half after Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal announced a death sentence against Sheikh Hasina, India issued a brief statement acknowledging the verdict. However, the Ministry of External Affairs’ statement placed the tribunal’s name in quotation marks, signalling that India may not fully recognise the designation.

The statement also emphasised that, as a close neighbour, India remains committed to the interests of the people of Bangladesh. Senior Indian officials have indicated to the BBC that the verdict does not change Delhi’s position on Sheikh Hasina, and there is no question of handing her over to Bangladesh.

Since she arrived in India on 5 August 2024, India’s stance on providing her temporary shelter has remained consistent. The Indian position has been that she is receiving temporary protection on humanitarian grounds, without any broader implications. Even after the tribunal’s ruling, India’s stance remains unchanged, and there is no indication it will reconsider its decision to host her.

The question now arises over the extradition request Bangladesh submitted under the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty. New Delhi has so far remained silent on the request, despite acknowledging receipt of a diplomatic note or ‘note verbale’ sent in December last year. Indian officials have privately indicated that the treaty contains numerous legal loopholes that allow them to delay or reject the extradition request at their discretion.

The context has shifted since last December, when Bangladesh first requested Sheikh Hasina’s return. At that time, the tribunal had only begun investigating her alleged role in the July student-led protests; no formal charges or verdict existed. Since then, multiple high-profile criminal cases have been filed against Awami League leaders in Bangladesh, reinforcing India’s earlier caution.

Now, Sheikh Hasina has been convicted of crimes, which could increase pressure on India to justify why it continues to shelter a fugitive and convicted criminal. Nevertheless, analysts suggest that India is unlikely to change its core position: while it may issue explanations, it will not hand her over to Bangladesh.

Under the 2013 India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, requests can be denied if the accused faces “political” charges. Yet certain crimes—including murder, enforced disappearance, manslaughter, bombings, and terrorism—cannot be considered political. Sheikh Hasina faces charges in Bangladesh involving murder, genocide, abduction, and torture, making it difficult for India to classify them as political.

Amendments made to the treaty in 2016 simplified extradition procedures. Article 10(3) states that the requesting country need not provide evidence beyond the arrest warrant issued by the relevant court. However, the treaty still allows the requested country to reject extradition under certain conditions: for example, if the accused is facing a case locally, or if India believes the charges were not made in good faith for the purposes of justice.

In Sheikh Hasina’s case, no legal proceedings exist against her in India. Observers note that India could use the clause allowing refusal if it judges that the charges were not brought solely in the interest of justice. Indian officials could therefore reject Bangladesh’s extradition request on these grounds without breaching the treaty.