Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing Salem, sought to withdraw the SLP after brief arguments. He explained the move was to enable a quicker hearing in the Bombay High Court on a related pending case. The apex court obliged, dismissing the plea ‘with liberty’ to approach the High Court for expedited proceedings.

Background to the case reveals Salem’s insistence that he has completed 25 years behind bars, as per the extradition pact with Portugal. He claimed entitlement to additional remission for good behavior, totaling over three years off his sentence. Yet, the Bombay High Court had earlier ruled on July 7, 2025, that the 25-year mark was not reached, denying any immediate relief.

Malhotra highlighted alleged miscalculations by prison authorities in tallying Salem’s jail time. The 1993 blasts, which claimed 257 lives, saw Salem convicted under TADA alongside other gangsters like Mustafa Dossa and Taqiuddin.

This rejection reinforces India’s commitment to justice for one of its most infamous terror attacks. With the matter redirected to the High Court, Salem’s path to possible freedom remains fraught with legal hurdles. Observers note this could set precedents for other extradited convicts seeking similar reliefs.

Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser, M Touhid Hossain, expressed expectations for India to address the matter, noting that the completion of the judicial process and Hasina’s conviction have altered the situation. The formal request cited the existing bilateral extradition treaty between the two nations, asserting India’s obligation to return the convicted fugitive.

The Bangladeshi Ministry of External Affairs’ communication highlighted that harboring individuals sentenced for such severe crimes would be perceived as an unfriendly act. The letter urged India to immediately deport and hand over Sheikh Hasina and another convicted individual, Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, emphasizing the binding duty under the extradition agreement.

Previously, India had acknowledged the verdict and stated its commitment to constructively engaging with Dhaka in the best interests of the Bangladeshi people, including supporting peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability.

The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) recently handed down the death penalty to Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal for crimes against humanity. The verdict stems from the July-August 2024 unrest, with the court finding Hasina responsible for ordering a crackdown on a student-led uprising. The tribunal also ordered the confiscation of all her Bangladeshi property. Former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun received a five-year prison sentence for his role.

In her first reaction, Sheikh Hasina denounced the verdict, calling it a result of “murderous intent” by extremist elements within the interim government. She characterized the tribunal as “rigged” and “politically motivated,” aimed at eliminating her and the Awami League. Hasina defended her government’s human rights record, pointing to initiatives like joining the International Criminal Court, providing refuge to Rohingya refugees, and significant economic growth during her tenure. She contrasted these achievements with those of her political opponents.

The ICT in Dhaka pronounced the death penalty in a case stemming from the 2024 student movement. Initially a protest against job-quota policies, these demonstrations rapidly broadened into widespread unrest targeting the Hasina administration. The ensuing violence resulted in numerous fatalities among students, protesters, and security forces, with the tribunal holding Hasina accountable.

Key charges leveled against the former premier include ordering killings, delivering inflammatory speeches that incited violence, obstructing justice, attempting to destroy evidence, and specific allegations of ordering the killing of student Abu Sayeed and involvement in the death and burning of five individuals in Chankharpul. She received the death sentence for the first two charges and a life sentence for obstruction of justice.

While Hasina has a 30-day window to appeal, a critical condition stipulates that she must be physically present in Bangladesh to do so, effectively barring an appeal from abroad. Hasina has denounced the verdict as “wrong, biased, and politically motivated,” asserting that her defense was not adequately heard and that the tribunal operates under an unelected interim government. She has expressed a willingness to present her case before the International Criminal Court.

Bangladesh’s interim government has formally requested Hasina’s extradition from India, citing the 2013 extradition treaty. However, the treaty contains clauses that allow for extradition refusal, particularly if the offense is deemed political in nature. Given Hasina’s claims of political persecution, India’s obligation to extradite is not absolute under the treaty’s provisions.

Concerns have also been raised about the impartiality of the ICT itself. Established by Hasina’s own government in 2010 to prosecute war crimes from the 1971 Liberation War, its scope was expanded by the current interim government to encompass recent events, including the student protests. With judges and prosecutors appointed by the interim administration, the tribunal’s credibility faces significant scrutiny, with some critics labeling it a “kangaroo court.”
The verdict has fueled significant unrest, with Hasina’s supporters staging protests and engaging in clashes across Bangladesh. The escalating political tension has led to fears of renewed instability within the nation. India’s response, navigating diplomatic ties, legal obligations, and regional security, will be a crucial factor in the unfolding events.

The ICT in Dhaka issued the death sentence in connection with the 2024 student movement. What began as a protest against job quotas evolved into widespread national demonstrations against the Hasina administration. These protests resulted in fatalities among students, demonstrators, and security forces, with the tribunal holding Hasina accountable for these tragic events.

Five key charges were brought against the former prime minister: ordering killings, delivering inflammatory speeches that incited violence, obstructing justice and tampering with evidence, ordering the killing of student Abu Sayeed, and involvement in the murder and cremation of five individuals in Chankharpul. Hasina received the death penalty for the first two charges and a life sentence for the third.

While Hasina has a 30-day window to appeal, the tribunal has stipulated that she cannot do so from abroad. This effectively requires her return to Bangladesh, a move she has indicated she will not make. She has publicly denounced the verdict as ‘wrong, biased, and politically motivated,’ asserting that her defense was not adequately presented and that the tribunal operates under an unelected government. Hasina has expressed willingness to present her case before the International Criminal Court.

Bangladesh’s interim government has formally requested India’s assistance in extraditing Hasina, citing the 2013 extradition treaty. However, the treaty contains specific clauses, including Article 6, which allows for the refusal of extradition if the alleged offense is political in nature. Given Hasina’s claims of political motivation, India’s obligation to extradite is questionable under these terms.

The ICT’s own establishment and recent amendments have drawn scrutiny. Initially created by Hasina’s government to address 1971 war crimes, the tribunal’s scope was expanded by the current interim government to include recent events like the student movement. Concerns have been raised about the tribunal’s impartiality, with judges and prosecutors appointed by the interim government, leading some critics to label it a ‘kangaroo court.’ The timing of the verdict, coinciding with Hasina’s wedding anniversary after a postponement, has also fueled speculation.

The ruling has already triggered protests and rallies by Hasina’s supporters in Bangladesh, with reports of violent confrontations. The escalating political tension has observers concerned about the country’s potential descent into instability. India’s response, balancing diplomatic relations, legal frameworks, and regional security, is a critical element to watch in this unfolding situation.