New Delhi: India has firmly rejected the latest ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration linked to the Indus Waters Treaty, describing the decision as legally invalid and maintaining that the tribunal itself has no legitimate authority under international law.
The Ministry of External Affairs stated that the arbitration body, constituted under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty framework, was “illegally constituted” and therefore any award or decision issued by it carries no legal value. The response came after the tribunal issued an award on May 15 concerning maximum pondage related to interpretation disputes under the treaty.
According to the government, India has consistently refused to recognise the authority or formation of the so called Court of Arbitration. Officials reiterated that all proceedings conducted by the panel are considered null and void by New Delhi. India also confirmed that its decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains unchanged.
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed between India and Pakistan in September 1960, governs the sharing and utilisation of waters from the Indus river system. Tensions surrounding the agreement intensified after the Pahalgam terror attack last year, following which India announced that it was placing the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan takes credible and irreversible action against cross border terrorism.
India has argued that, while the treaty remains suspended, it is not obligated to fulfil any commitments under the agreement. The government has also maintained that no arbitration forum has the jurisdiction to question India’s sovereign decisions taken in the interest of national security.
The dispute is closely linked to objections raised by Pakistan over the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. India had earlier criticised the arbitration process concerning those projects as unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the treaty itself.
New Delhi has repeatedly accused Pakistan of misusing international forums to avoid accountability on terrorism related concerns, calling the arbitration process another example of what it described as manipulation of global mechanisms for political purposes.
