Trending
By Md Abbas
Long Reads - -
Photo: Collected
Ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina has reportedly applied for a new Bangladeshi passport and National Identity Card (NID) through a UK-based legal advisory firm, according to a November 9, 2026 Reuters report. The firm submitted the applications to the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi on her behalf.
The Bangladesh government, however, has ruled out issuing her the documents, saying she must return through the existing extradition process between the two countries. Dhaka has already formally requested India to hand her over under the bilateral extradition treaty.
The development has raised questions about whether Hasina can legally return to Bangladesh. Her passport was cancelled, her NID was locked, and she was sentenced to death in absentia by the International Crimes Tribunal in November 2025 in a case involving crimes against humanity. She also faces dozens of other cases.
So, can Hasina return despite these legal and administrative hurdles? And what are the possible routes?
Answering that question requires examining five separate matters: her constitutional position as a Bangladeshi citizen, her eligibility for a new passport, the possibility of obtaining a travel pass, the constitutional provisions governing people accused or convicted of international crimes, and the extradition process through which one country formally hands over a person to another.
Hasina has been staying in India since fleeing Bangladesh in the face of a mass uprising in August 2024.
The Constitution of Bangladesh recognises citizens' freedom of movement, including the right to leave and re-enter the country.
Article 36 states that, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout Bangladesh, reside and settle anywhere, and leave and re-enter it.
However, whether Hasina can invoke this fundamental right in the ordinary way requires consideration of other constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 47(3) and 47A.
Supreme Court lawyer Arif Khan, who has a particular interest in constitutional law, said Article 36 cannot be considered in isolation.
He argues that the constitutional framework governing individuals accused or convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must also be taken into account when assessing Hasina's claim to fundamental rights.
Article 47(3), introduced through the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1973, provides a special constitutional framework for laws relating to the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other international crimes.
Article 47A further restricts the enjoyment of certain fundamental rights by persons covered under Article 47(3). It also limits their ability to seek remedies from the Supreme Court under specified constitutional provisions.
Khan argues that these provisions must be read together when considering whether Hasina can rely on Article 36 to claim an unrestricted right to return to Bangladesh.
He adds that a person convicted of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes cannot claim the constitutional protections available to ordinary citizens under Article 36.
There is also a historical dimension to this argument. The original constitutional provision introduced in 1973 covered members of defence, disciplined and auxiliary forces. Through the Fifteenth Amendment in 2011, during Hasina's own government, the scope was extended to include individuals, groups and organisations involved in the specified international crimes.
This means the constitutional provisions governing the prosecution of individuals for international crimes were not introduced specifically to deal with Hasina's current circumstances. They were already part of the constitutional framework, with the scope expanded during her tenure as prime minister.
Arif Khan points out that these provisions were introduced and subsequently expanded by the Awami League government itself. Therefore, Hasina and her party cannot claim that the constitutional restrictions were newly introduced to target her or deny her particular rights.
Hasina cannot invoke Article 36 to claim an unrestricted right to return because of her conviction for crimes against humanity and the constitutional provisions governing such offences. -Arif Khan, Supreme Court lawyer
This also brings us to a distinction between the constitutional right to return and the legal process through which a person convicted of international crimes can be brought back from another country.
According to media reports in January 2025, the then interim government announced the cancellation of passports belonging to 97 individuals, including Hasina. Of them, 75 were accused of involvement in killings during the July-August movement. The passports of another 22 people were cancelled over allegations of enforced disappearances and killings.
The Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 sets out the circumstances in which authorities can refuse to issue a passport.
Article 6 lists the grounds for refusing a passport or travel document. These include issues related to citizenship, certain criminal convictions, the possibility of someone using a passport to evade criminal proceedings, and public interest. Article 7 deals with the withdrawal or cancellation of passports already issued.
Importantly, cancelling someone's passport does not automatically revoke their citizenship. The two are separate legal matters. However, being a citizen does not mean a person is automatically entitled to a new passport under all circumstances.
One provision that may be relevant in Hasina's case is Article 6(1)(c). It refers to a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years within the preceding five years. The Passport Order also allows authorities to refuse a passport on public interest grounds.
According to a report by Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said on 9 November that the foreign and law ministries were examining the authenticity and legal basis of applications reportedly submitted by Sheikh Hasina for a National Identity Card (NID) and a passport.
There is also a question about whether the applications were submitted by an authorised representative.
Arif Khan points out that applications for passports and NIDs are ordinarily required to be submitted by the applicant personally, although the law may allow an authorised representative to submit them in circumstances where personal attendance is not possible. Such representation, however, requires proper written authorisation.
He said that the Reuters report does not establish whether the London-based legal advisory firm had written authorisation from Hasina to submit the applications on her behalf. The absence of such evidence raises questions about the validity of the representation, although it does not in itself establish that the applications are fraudulent.
However, Arif's broader constitutional argument is that, given Hasina's conviction for crimes against humanity and the restrictions under Articles 47(3) and 47A, obtaining a passport cannot provide her with a legal route to bypass the extradition process.
Hasina's NID is a separate administrative matter.
According to a bdnews24.com report published in April 2025, her NID and those of nine members of her family were locked following an instruction from the Director General of the National Identity Registration Division.
But locking an NID is not the same as cancelling it. An administrative lock may prevent someone from using the document for identity verification or making corrections. It does not, by itself, mean that the person's citizenship has been revoked.
The National Identity Registration Act, 2023 governs the registration of citizens and the issuance of NIDs. An NID is an identity document, not an international travel document.
Arif, however, said that the question of Hasina's NID does not change the legal position arising from her conviction and the constitutional restrictions applicable to her. Whether her NID is active or locked does not provide an alternative route around the extradition process.
This is perhaps the most important question, given that Bangladesh has already approached India to bring Hasina back.
The two countries signed an extradition treaty on January 28, 2013. It came into force on October 23 that year and was amended in 2016.
Under the treaty, one country can request another to hand over a person who has been accused of, charged with or convicted of an extraditable offence, or who is wanted to serve a court sentence, according to the full text of the treaty published by India's Ministry of External Affairs.
Article 1 establishes the general framework for extradition, while Article 2 sets out what qualifies as an extraditable offence. Generally, the offence must carry a prison sentence of at least one year under the laws of both countries.
Another important provision is Article 5, which says that the treaty does not prevent a country from extraditing its own nationals. This means a person's citizenship alone does not prevent extradition, provided the other conditions of the treaty are met.
On November 9, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said Bangladesh had formally requested India through diplomatic channels to return Hasina. According to the BSS report, the government had taken steps under the extradition treaty and applicable laws.
The government has also indicated that it would pursue extradition rather than depend on issuing her a passport to bring her back.
This distinction is important. Extradition is not an ordinary international journey in which a person travels using a passport. It is a formal process through which one country hands over a person to another under an agreement between the two states. A passport, NID, or travel pass is not ordinarily required for a person to be transferred through a formal extradition process.
According to Arif Khan, given Hasina's conviction for crimes against humanity and the constitutional provisions governing such offences, extradition is the appropriate legal route for securing her return. In his interpretation, she cannot use the ordinary process of obtaining a passport or travel pass to return voluntarily while bypassing the legal consequences of her conviction and the pending extradition request.
However, the treaty does not mean India is obliged to accept every extradition request.
Article 6 allows countries to refuse extradition in cases involving political offences, although it also lists exceptions. These include murder, homicide, serious bodily injury, kidnapping and certain terrorism-related offences.
Article 8 provides further grounds for refusing extradition. These include situations where the accusation was not made in good faith in the interests of justice, or where extradition would be unjust or oppressive.
Whether any of these provisions applies to Hasina will depend on Bangladesh's formal request, the offences and sentences involved, the evidence and documents submitted by Bangladesh, and the treaty's requirements. India will have to examine the request under the treaty and its own laws.
In other words, Bangladesh's formal request does not guarantee that India will hand her over. The final decision rests with the relevant Indian authorities under the applicable legal framework.
If Sheikh Hasina is brought back to Bangladesh through extradition, any enforceable court orders, arrest warrants or sentences against her would have to be dealt with under Bangladeshi law.
According to Arif Khan, if Hasina is brought into custody in Bangladesh, she would have the opportunity to pursue the legal remedies available under the law. These include an appeal against the International Crimes Tribunal's verdict before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, subject to the applicable statutory requirements and procedures.
If the appeal is decided against her, she may also seek a review of the Appellate Division's decision, where permitted by law.
Another constitutional remedy is the power of the President to grant a pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment under Article 49 of the Constitution. Hasina would be entitled to submit such a request, although whether the President grants it is an entirely separate matter.
These are distinct legal stages. The availability and exercise of each remedy would depend on the relevant laws, procedural requirements and decisions of the competent authorities and courts.
A person sentenced to death cannot simply be deprived of the judicial remedies available under the law. The enforcement of the sentence must follow the applicable legal procedures.
The Constitution, the Passport Order, the NID law and the extradition treaty address different aspects of Hasina's possible return. None should be treated as interchangeable.
First, cancellation of her passport does not automatically revoke her Bangladeshi citizenship. However, her eligibility to obtain a new passport is a separate question governed by the Passport Order, including its provisions concerning criminal convictions and public interest.
Second, Article 36 recognises citizens' freedom of movement, including the right to leave and re-enter Bangladesh. But that provision must be considered alongside Articles 47(3) and 47A, which establish special constitutional provisions concerning persons accused or convicted of international crimes. Hasina cannot invoke Article 36 to claim the ordinary constitutional protection of unrestricted return following her conviction for crimes against humanity.
Third, her locked NID and cancelled passport do not automatically revoke her citizenship. However, neither a new passport nor a travel pass provides a lawful alternative to the extradition process in her particular circumstances.
The remaining route is extradition. Bangladesh says it has already taken steps to bring her back through the India-Bangladesh treaty. Whether that succeeds will depend on the treaty's conditions, the supporting documents and the decision of the Indian authorities.
Finally, if Hasina is brought back and taken into custody, she would remain entitled to pursue the judicial remedies available under the law, subject to the applicable procedures. These may include an appeal, review and a petition for presidential clemency.
Hasina's return depends on the extradition process and the decisions of both governments under the applicable legal framework. Her citizenship, passport and NID status are separate legal matters, but they do not provide her with an alternative route to voluntary return in the circumstances of her conviction.
-Md Abbas is a freelance journalist and corporate communication professional.
For many Bangladeshis, the neighbourhood medicine shop is the most accessible place to seek treatment. However, when a pharmacy becomes a substitute for a doctor, the risks can extend far beyond the illness that brought a patient there.
- Long Reads
