India has once again dismissed the ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague on 15 May 2026 concerning the Indus Waters Treaty, maintaining that the decision carries no legal force for New Delhi. The ruling relates to water storage at India’s hydroelectric projects on the western rivers.

International Desk: Reiterating its long-standing position on the Indus Waters Treaty dispute, India has declared the Hague-based Court of Arbitration’s latest ruling to be invalid. According to New Delhi, the tribunal was not established in accordance with the treaty’s provisions and therefore lacks the authority to issue decisions that are binding on India.

Policy Shift Following the Pahalgam Terror Attack

India suspended the treaty’s cooperative provisions on 23 April 2025, one day after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 people. The incident was followed by a brief military confrontation between India and Pakistan.

The Indian government has stated that these cooperative measures will remain suspended until Pakistan demonstrates a credible and lasting commitment to ending its support for cross-border terrorism. The Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed this position on 3 July 2026.

India Says Treaty Was Built on Mutual Trust

India maintains that the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty was founded on mutual trust, goodwill and cooperation between the two countries. According to New Delhi, these principles cannot be sustained if one party continues to support terrorism across the border while expecting the other to honour all of its cooperative obligations.

At the same time, India has emphasised that it has neither obstructed nor altered the natural flow of water into Pakistan. Officials state that only cooperative mechanisms—including the exchange of hydrological data, meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission and participation in dispute resolution procedures—have been placed on hold.

Objections to the Arbitration Process

India’s principal objection relates to the manner in which the dispute resolution process was initiated. It argues that Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty provides a clearly defined sequence for resolving disputes.

Under the treaty, issues should first be examined by the Permanent Indus Commission. If technical disagreements remain unresolved, they should be referred to a Neutral Expert. Only disputes involving questions of legal interpretation may ultimately be taken before a Court of Arbitration.

India contends that Pakistan bypassed this agreed procedure in disputes concerning the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects by approaching the Court of Arbitration directly, despite India’s earlier request for the appointment of a Neutral Expert. New Delhi argues that allowing parallel proceedings before two different forums over the same matter undermines the treaty’s framework and risks producing contradictory rulings.

India Highlights Six Decades of Compliance

India says it has consistently honoured the Indus Waters Treaty since its signing in 1960, including during the wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999. It also points out that water supplies to Pakistan were never interrupted following major terrorist incidents such as the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

The government further argues that a number of its hydroelectric projects—including Salal, Tulbul, Kishanganga, Baglihar and Ratle—have faced significant delays because of prolonged legal disputes and arbitration proceedings, resulting in increased construction costs and extended completion timelines.

Water Flow Remains Unaffected

India has stressed that it has neither stopped nor diverted the flow of water from the western rivers into Pakistan. According to the government, its current measures are confined to suspending the treaty’s cooperative mechanisms rather than restricting water supplies.

Officials have indicated that the policy could be reviewed if circumstances improve. Pakistan, however, has strongly opposed India’s actions and has objected to any unilateral changes affecting the implementation of the water-sharing treaty. As a result, diplomatic tensions between the two neighbours continue over the issue.