New Delhi [India], August 14 : India on Thursday firmly rejected the recent award issued by the Hague-based Court of Arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty, citing the court's lack of jurisdiction, legitimacy, and competence.
Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that India's position on the matter remains unchanged, emphasising that the treaty stands suspended following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, that claimed the lives of 26 tourists.
India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy, or competence of the so-called Court of Arbitration. Its pronouncements are therefore without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing, and have no bearing on India's rights of utilisation of waters," Jaiswal said while responding to a question byduring a weekly media briefing.
India accused Pakistan of manipulating the treaty process to deflect from its support of terrorism, labelling the arbitration a "desperate attempt" to avoid accountability. India exercised its sovereign right under international law to place the treaty in abeyance, linking its reinstatement to Pakistan's verifiable cessation of cross-border terrorism support.
India also rejected Pakistan's misleading references to the ruling given by the Court.
MEA said, "India also categorically rejects Pakistan's selective and misleading references to the so-called "award."
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, governs the sharing of the Indus River's waters between India and Pakistan. Recent disputes have arisen over India's hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, with Pakistan objecting to certain design elements.
The remarks came after the Court of Arbitration, empanelled in 2022 under the Indus Waters Treaty, delivered an "Award on Issues of General Interpretation" on August 8, 2025, in a case initiated by Pakistan over India's Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir.
The arbitration was initiated by Pakistan against India, concerning the interpretation and application of the treaty to certain design elements of run-of-river hydroelectric plants that India is permitted to construct on the Western Rivers.
Pakistan initiated arbitration proceedings against India in 2022, seeking clarification on certain design elements of run-of-river hydroelectric plants. India did not participate in the proceedings, objecting to the competence of the Court.
The award has significant implications for the relationship between India and Pakistan, particularly with regard to their use of the Indus River system. The Court held that its awards are final and binding on both parties and have a controlling legal effect on subsequent neutral experts and courts of arbitration.
The Court determined that the object and purpose of the treaty is to delimit the rights and obligations of India and Pakistan regarding the Western Rivers, with a focus on mutual cooperation and effective dispute resolution.
The Court provided guidance on the design requirements for run-of-river hydroelectric plants, including the size and location of low-level outlets, gated spillways, and intakes for turbines.
In its ruling, the Court stated that while India must "let flow" the waters of the Western Rivers for Pakistan's unrestricted use, certain exceptions exist, such as hydroelectric power generation, which must adhere strictly to Treaty specifications.
"There are certain specified exceptions to this rule, including in relation to the generation of hydroelectric power, but these exceptions must be strictly construed: the design and operation of run-of-river hydroelectric plants must be strictly to the requirements in the Treaty, " the ruling said.
It added that such disputes should be addressed through the Treaty's notification, objection, and resolution procedures.
The Court also noted that India had not participated in the proceedings and had repeatedly challenged its jurisdiction, but claimed that India had been kept fully informed and had the opportunity to take part at any stage.
India, however, has consistently maintained that the arbitration is "illegal" and "in brazen violation" of the Treaty.
"India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void, " MEA said a statement.
On June 27, the MEA had already dismissed a "supplemental award" issued by the Court.
"The illegal Court of Arbitration, purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, albeit in brazen violation of it, has issued what it characterises as a "supplemental award" on its competence concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, " MEA said in the statement.
"This latest charade at Pakistan's behest is yet another desperate attempt by it to escape accountability for its role as the global epicenter of terrorism. Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums, according to MEA.
While the August 8 Award does not apply its findings directly to the Kishenganga or Ratle projects, the Court said it remains seized of those matters and will determine next steps after consulting the parties.
The five-member Court is chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States, with members from Belgium, the United States, Jordan, and Australia. The Award was unanimous except for one section on maximum pondage, decided by a 4-1 majority.
The Court will determine the next steps in the proceedings after seeking the views of the parties.
India accused Pakistan of manipulating international legal mechanisms to divert global attention from its support of cross-border terrorism.
The MEA described the court's proceedings as a "charade at Pakistan's behest" and reiterated that Pakistan must permanently renounce terrorism before India considers resuming its treaty obligations.
India argued that the PCA was illegally constituted under the treaty and that its ruling is invalid. India maintains that the dispute should be resolved through the Neutral Expert mechanism, as stipulated in the treaty.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor