India rejects Hague court order to restore Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan
India is officially a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
India has rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague directing it to maintain the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, arguing that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter.
India suspended the treaty in April last year after saying two of the three attackers involved in an assault at a tourist site in Kashmir that killed 26 people were Pakistani. Pakistan has denied any role in the attack.
The dispute has brought the decades-old Kashmir conflict to the forefront as the key factor behind the breakdown of the long-standing water-sharing agreement, which had survived three wars between the two countries. Under the 1960 treaty, the shared river system supplies water to about 80% of Pakistan's agricultural land.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
India's rejection came after the international tribunal ruled Monday that the treaty remains fully binding and that India had no grounds to terminate or suspend it.
The tribunal also directed India to restrict construction work on the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant in Kashmir, including prohibiting work on the dam wall and power intake structure beyond specified levels. The restrictions will remain effective until 90 days after a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank issues a decision, which is expected by July 2027.
India's Ministry of External Affairs said, however, that New Delhi does not recognise the tribunal and "categorically" rejected its ruling.
"This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India's sovereign decisions," the ministry said in a statement.
It added that the tribunal's pronouncements, whether issued now or in the future, would have no bearing on India's actions concerning projects being developed by the country.
India is officially a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Pakistan welcomed the tribunal's interim measures, saying its government was carefully examining the ruling to determine how it could best contribute to creating a way back to engagement under the treaty's legally binding obligations.
