India rejects arbitration ruling on Indus Waters Treaty

Hindustan Times reports that India rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration's order setting aside the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and prohibiting certain structures of the Ratle hydroelectric project. The external affairs ministry maintained that the court was illegally constituted and that India's suspension of the treaty following the Pahalgam attack remains in force. Meanwhile, the court unanimously found that India's stated grounds did not justify terminating or suspending the treaty.

The Express Tribune reports that the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force and that India has no justification for suspending the agreement. The court ordered India to limit work on hydroelectric projects and uphold the treaty, while the Indian foreign ministry categorically rejected the ruling. Pakistan previously brought the case in 2016 over concerns regarding Indian run-of-river projects on western rivers.

Hindustan Times reports that Pakistan has welcomed the Hague Arbitration Court's order on the Indus Waters Treaty after India rejected the ruling. The article notes that India dismissed the court as illegally constituted and reiterated that its decision to hold the treaty in abeyance remains in force. Additionally, the publication details that India suspended the water-sharing agreement following a terror attack in Pahalgam in April of the previous year.

GujaratSamachar English reports that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that India must scale back work on hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir and abide by the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. The article states that India firmly rejected the ruling, asserting that the tribunal is an illegally constituted body without jurisdiction over sovereign decisions. Furthermore, the publication notes that India's suspension of the treaty following security concerns remains unchanged.

Deccan Herald reports that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague stated India must uphold the Indus Waters Treaty, which India suspended following bilateral tensions and a terror attack in Kashmir. The article details that India rejected the intergovernmental court's verdict and asserted that the body has no jurisdiction over its sovereign decisions. Furthermore, the publication notes that the treaty ensures water supply to a significant portion of Pakistani farms.

Indiablooms reports that New Delhi has rejected a ruling by the Hague-based Court of Arbitration stating that the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force and must be respected. The Ministry of External Affairs reiterated that the arbitration tribunal was constituted in breach of the treaty and lacks jurisdiction over Indian sovereign decisions and hydroelectric projects. The report details the historical background of the 1960 treaty and notes that India placed the agreement in abeyance following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, while the tribunal maintains that India remains bound by its obligations.

Al Jazeera reports that India has rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration ordering it to uphold the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. New Delhi stated that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over its sovereign choices, following the suspension of the accord over security concerns after an attack in Kashmir. The court also ordered India to limit construction on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant until a World Bank-appointed neutral expert delivers a decision expected by July 2027.

Diplomacy and Law analyzes the legal aspects of the Court of Arbitration's decision stating that the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force despite India placing it in abeyance. The article details the tribunal's interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant on the Chenab River and outlines India's position that the court lacks jurisdiction. It also discusses the broader legal framework, customary international law, and the institutional distinctions between the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Neutral Experts, and the Court of Arbitration.

Scroll.in reports that India rejected an international court order setting aside New Delhi's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague had ruled that the treaty remains in force and prohibited certain structures on the Ratle hydroelectric project. However, the Ministry of External Affairs maintained that the court was illegally constituted, lacked jurisdiction over India's sovereign decisions, and that the treaty remains in abeyance.

The Economic Times reports that India rejected an award by the World Bank's Court of Arbitration regarding the Indus Waters Treaty, declaring the court illegal and without jurisdiction. The Ministry of External Affairs stated that the court's pronouncements will not affect India's actions and that the treaty remains in abeyance. Meanwhile, the arbitration court stated that India's grounds for suspension did not justify it and that the treaty remains fully in force.

India has rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration order that set aside its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. The Ministry of External Affairs maintained that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction and that the treaty remains in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack. Meanwhile, the court concluded that none of the grounds cited by India justified suspending or terminating the treaty, noting that the agreement does not address terrorism.

India has rejected an order from the Permanent Court of Arbitration setting aside its decision to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. According to the Ministry of External Affairs, India views the court as illegally constituted and maintains that its decision to hold the treaty in abeyance remains in force. Pakistan approached the intergovernmental organisation in March 2026 to challenge India's actions regarding the river systems. The court ultimately concluded that India's grounds for suspension were invalid and that the treaty remains fully in force.