India has firmly rejected a ruling by the Hague based Court of Arbitration concerning the Indus Waters Treaty, maintaining that the treaty remains suspended and that the tribunal has no authority to decide on India’s sovereign actions. The Ministry of External Affairs said India has never recognised the establishment of the so called Court of Arbitration under the current proceedings. According to New Delhi, any award, order or decision issued by the body has no legal validity for India. The latest development follows a ruling by the tribunal stating that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force and that India is required to continue observing its obligations under the agreement.

The court also issued directions concerning hydroelectric projects in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region. India, however, has rejected the tribunal's jurisdiction altogether. The government reiterated that its decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains firmly in effect. The treaty, signed between India and Pakistan in 1960 with the World Bank playing a facilitating role, governs the sharing of waters from the Indus river system. Relations surrounding the agreement have sharply deteriorated following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, after which India announced that the treaty would be held in abeyance.

New Delhi has linked the suspension to Pakistan's alleged support for cross border terrorism, arguing that normal water cooperation cannot continue under such circumstances. India has repeatedly maintained that no external arbitration body can determine whether its sovereign decision to place the treaty in abeyance is valid. The Hague ruling, meanwhile, represents a significant disagreement between the tribunal's interpretation and India's position. While the court considers the treaty legally operative, India insists that the arbitration process itself lacks legitimacy. The dispute adds another layer to already strained India Pakistan relations, with water sharing becoming an increasingly sensitive strategic issue. Both sides now remain firmly divided over the treaty's status and the authority of international mechanisms to intervene in the matter.