India has rejected a fresh arbitration award concerning the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, maintaining that the tribunal was improperly constituted and has no authority to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions.
The Ministry of External Affairs said on August 31 that India’s decision to keep the 1960 water-sharing agreement in abeyance remains in force. It added that pronouncements by the body would have no effect on India’s actions connected with projects being undertaken in the country.
The award addressed interim measures and the legal status of the treaty after India placed it in abeyance. The arbitration panel took the position that the agreement remains binding and considered restrictions connected with work on a hydroelectric project until a separate neutral-expert process reaches a decision.
India rejected both the award and the legal basis of the panel. New Delhi’s position is that the so-called Court of Arbitration was constituted in breach of the treaty’s provisions and therefore does not exist as a valid body in law.
India has not participated in the proceedings before the panel and has declined to recognise its earlier pronouncements. The latest statement continues that approach, asserting that a body India regards as unlawfully constituted cannot determine the consequences of a sovereign policy decision.
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by India and Pakistan in 1960 with the World Bank playing a facilitating role. It established a framework governing the use of rivers in the Indus system and created procedures for dealing with technical questions, differences and disputes.
Disagreement over the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanism has intensified because proceedings involving a neutral expert and a separate arbitration panel have moved in parallel. India has argued that simultaneous processes on overlapping questions create legal and practical contradictions.
The current dispute also extends beyond technical questions about project design. India placed the treaty in abeyance after the April 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 civilians, linking restoration of normal treaty operation to Pakistan credibly and irrevocably ending support for cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan has opposed the suspension and backed the arbitration process. The panel’s latest award supports the view that the treaty continues to operate and that unilateral suspension does not remove the parties’ obligations. India’s response rejects that conclusion and the panel’s jurisdiction to reach it.
Hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir are among the practical issues affected by the competing legal positions. Pakistan has raised objections to the design and operation of Indian projects on the western rivers, while India maintains that its projects conform to its rights and development requirements.
The latest exchange therefore leaves the core dispute unresolved. The panel has issued an award, but India does not recognise the body or accept that its directions have legal effect. Pakistan, by contrast, treats the process as a valid route under the treaty.
The immediate consequence is a continuation of the existing positions rather than a negotiated settlement. India says the treaty remains in abeyance and that its project decisions will not be altered by the award. Any change would require either a shift in the political relationship, agreement on a dispute-resolution path or further developments affecting the legal and diplomatic contest.
