New Delhi, May 17, 2026 – In a firm and unequivocal rejection of international legal proceedings, the Government of India has declared the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling from The Hague on the Indus Waters Treaty as "null and void," maintaining that India has never recognised the authority of the so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) and reaffirming that its decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains firmly in force.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, in a detailed statement on Saturday, categorically rejected the tribunal's award, stating, "The illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) has, on May 15, issued what it termed an award concerning maximum pondage supplemental to the award on issues of general interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty. India categorically rejects the present so-called award, just as it has firmly rejected all prior pronouncements of the illegally constituted CoA." Jaiswal's statement underscored India's consistent legal position that the arbitration body has no standing under Indian law.

The MEA spokesperson went further to clarify India's legal position, asserting, "India has never recognised the establishment of this 'so-called' CoA. Any proceeding, award, or decision issued by it is null and void. India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains in force." The statement made it clear that since the treaty is in abeyance, "India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty," effectively nullifying the entire arbitration process initiated by Pakistan.

The tribunal's ruling, issued on May 15, 2026, concerned Pakistan's objections to two hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir—the Kishenganga and Ratle projects—which India had constructed on the western rivers allocated to Pakistan under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan had objected to these projects under the treaty framework, arguing that India violated design specifications. The Hague-based Court of Arbitration, which Pakistan had sought to establish, had directed India to submit operational logbooks of the two hydroelectric plants or provide formal explanations for its refusal, a directive India had already rejected.

India has been maintaining that the so-called Court of Arbitration to look into the matter was "illegally constituted," and that the creation of this arbitral body is, in itself, a "serious breach" of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Foreign Ministry emphasized that India has never formally recognised the existence of the "so-called Court of Arbitration" in the eye of law, and that any award or decision taken by the court is "illegal and per se void."

The ruling gained prominence following the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, after which India took a series of punitive measures against Pakistan, including putting the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty in "abeyance." This decision marked a significant escalation in India's response to Pakistan's continued support for cross-border terrorism and represented a major shift in the bilateral relationship on water sharing issues.

Jaiswal dismissed Pakistan's resort to the arbitration mechanism as "yet another desperate attempt by it to escape accountability for its role as the global epicenter of terror." The MEA statement characterised the tribunal's proceedings as "this latest charade at Pakistan's behest," adding that "Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums." The statement painted a clear picture of India's view that Pakistan was attempting to use international legal mechanisms to undermine India's sovereign rights.

The MEA's statement also addressed the broader legal framework, asserting, "No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India's actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign." This position underscores India's insistence on its sovereign prerogative to develop its water resources in accordance with its national interests, independent of international pressure or arbitration proceedings initiated by Pakistan.

The rejection of the Hague ruling comes at a time when India has been increasingly assertive in its approach to water sharing with Pakistan, particularly given the documented history of terror attacks originating from Pakistani soil. The government's position reflects the broader strategic shift in India-Pakistan relations, where the traditional frameworks of cooperation have been severely strained by Pakistan's continued support for terrorism.

India's firm stance on the Indus Waters Treaty and its rejection of the arbitration ruling has significant implications for regional water security and bilateral relations. The decision to hold the treaty in abeyance and reject all arbitration proceedings represents one of the most significant challenges to the 1960 water-sharing agreement, which had remained intact despite multiple wars and conflicts between the two nations. The MEA's comprehensive statement leaves no ambiguity about India's position: the tribunal's award is illegal, the treaty is in abeyance, and India will not comply with any orders from the so-called Court of Arbitration.