Citing the court’s lack of jurisdiction, legitimacy, and competence, India has adamantly rejected the recent ruling made by the Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
Randhir Jaiswal, a spokesman for the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), emphasized that India has never acknowledged the legitimacy, legality, or competence of this court, characterizing its rulings as “without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing,” and that they have no bearing on India’s rights to use the Indus River system’s waters.
The Court’s August 8, 2025, award, which addressed interpretations of India’s run-of-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers—specifically, the Kishenganga and Ratle projects located in Jammu and Kashmir—is subject to this rejection.
Following the 26-person Pahalgam terror assault on April 22, 2025, India continues to maintain that the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended or in abeyance.
Given Pakistan’s continued assistance for cross-border terrorism, India made the sovereign option to suspend the pact. India maintains that reinstatement of the treaty is contingent on Pakistan’s verifiable cessation of such support.
In an attempt to avoid international responsibility for its role as a sponsor of terrorism, India accused Pakistan of tampering with the treaty process and utilizing the arbitration mechanism.
MEA condemned the Court’s proceedings as a “charade at Pakistan’s behest” and cautioned that before India considers resuming its commitments under the treaty, Pakistan must permanently renounce terrorism.
The award from the Court of Arbitration emphasized that India must “let flow” the waters for Pakistan’s unrestricted use, with only narrowly construed exceptions for hydroelectric power generation, and that India’s hydroelectric projects must strictly adhere to the design and operational criteria specified by the treaty.
The Court maintained that its decisions are final and enforceable against both parties in spite of India’s protests and reluctance to take part in the arbitration, claiming the Court’s unconstitutional constitution and lack of authority.
India’s hydroelectric dams on the Western Rivers, which Pakistan alleges decrease water flow downstream, are at the heart of this complex legal issue.
After India’s preferred neutral expert method for resolving disputes under treaty terms was ineffective, Pakistan started the arbitration procedure in 2022 to contest specific design elements of these projects.
India maintains that the framework of the treaty must be followed for resolving disputes, preferring the Neutral Expert method over the Court of Arbitration, which was established without both parties’ approval and is therefore deemed to be in violation of the treaty by India.
With the exception of one portion that was resolved by a 4-1 majority, the Court of Arbitration, which is chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States and has five members from diverse countries, rendered a unanimous decision.
The Court is nonetheless concerned about the projects’ ongoing issues and will decide on the next course of action after speaking with both parties.
India claims that the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended because of Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism and vehemently denies the Court of Arbitration’s jurisdiction and rulings.
India sees the ongoing arbitration as a calculated legal maneuver by Pakistan to avoid accountability and associates any restoration of treaty duties with Pakistan stopping its support for terrorism. Amid larger geopolitical tensions between the two nations over water rights and security concerns, the debate underscores the precarious nature of the Indus Waters Treaty regime.