India’s Rejection of Arbitration Jurisdiction on the Indus Waters Treaty

India’s Categorical Rejection: “No Existence in Law” for the Hague Tribunal 

India has resolutely rejected the recent ruling of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) concerning water disputes under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) labelled the court “illegally constituted,” refuting its competence to adjudicate the dispute and declaring its awards “illegal and per se void.” “India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy, or competence of the so-called Court of Arbitration. Its pronouncements are therefore without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing, and have no bearing on India’s rights of utilisation of waters. India also categorically rejects Pakistan’s selective and misleading references to the so-called award,” stated MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during a press briefing on August 14, 2025.

This stance is not new. India has consistently preferred the neutral expert mechanism stipulated under the treaty over the Court of Arbitration and has emphatically denied the World Bank's decision to concurrently activate both mechanisms for the same disputes—including the contentious Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. As the MEA reiterated, “the Indus Waters Treaty stands in abeyance by a sovereign decision of the Government of India, taken in response to Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, including the barbaric Pahalgam attack”.

Treaty in Abeyance: Sovereignty and Security Linked 

India’s official notification to Pakistan on April 24, 2025, suspended the IWT, citing “fundamental change in circumstances”—principally, ongoing cross-border terrorism, which generates “security uncertainties” undermining India’s ability to fully utilise its treaty entitlements. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinforced the connection between water cooperation and national security: “India’s water will flow for India’s benefit, it will be conserved for India’s benefit, and it will be used for India’s progress… blood and water cannot flow together.” External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar confirmed the suspension would persist until Pakistan “credibly and irreversibly” ends its support for terrorism.

India’s hold on the treaty is strategically nuanced: while the move is a stark rebuke to Pakistan and the international legal process, it is not a withdrawal from all bilateral water cooperation. Rather, it is a “pause of cooperation, not an end”, designed to force the issue within both regional and treaty frameworks.

The PCA’s Ruling: Jurisdiction, Treaty Interpretation, and Pakistan’s Position 

Pakistan welcomed the PCA’s August 2025 ruling, which interpreted design criteria for new Indian run-of-river hydro projects on the Western Rivers (Chenab, Jhelum, Indus), asserting India must allow flow for Pakistan’s “unrestricted use.” The PCA’s award declared its findings “final and binding on both countries” and stated that the designs for Indian hydro projects must “rigorously” follow treaty specifications rather than national best practices, effectively siding with Pakistan’s legal arguments.

Pakistan’s Attorney General Mansoor Usman hailed the decision, emphasising that “India cannot proceed with any of these projects in contravention of the court’s ruling.” Pakistan’s Foreign Office declared the ruling a vindication of its concerns about India’s potential to restrict flows vital for its agriculture and energy sectors. 

Why India Rejects International Arbitration Jurisdiction 

India’s principled and procedural objections rest on several legal pillars: 

• Non-recognition in Treaty Text: India argues that the PCA’s constitution on the matter represents a “serious breach” of the IWT’s dispute resolution framework. The treaty provides for a neutral expert mechanism and arbitration only under defined circumstances, and India claims that Pakistan’s unilateral push for full arbitration lacks a treaty basis. 

• Sovereignty and Consent: International arbitration generally requires mutual consent. India’s stance is that its sovereign notification suspending the treaty removes any foundation for the PCA to continue, especially when “events occurring after arbitration had begun cannot defeat an established tribunal’s competence” (an explicit legal debate). 

• Parallel Proceedings Challenge: India has repeatedly objected to the World Bank’s 2022 decision to activate both the neutral expert and arbitral processes concurrently—a deviation from standard international dispute practice. 

As a matter of treaty law, India’s position seeks to assert the Vienna Convention principle that state sovereignty and fundamental change in circumstances (“rebus sic stantibus”) justify suspension or modification of a treaty. The linkage with security invokes Article 62 and customary international law on termination of treaties for material breach. 

How the Standoff Alters International Treaty Dispute Resolution 

Precedents and Treaty Law 

India’s stance departs from decades of pragmatic, if contentious, treaty implementation that weathered war, surging nationalism, and hostile incidents. The strict rejection of arbitral and multilateral involvement signals a hardening of India’s approach to international dispute resolution, with potential implications for other transboundary river regimes across Asia and beyond. 

Global Comparisons 

Similar tensions exist worldwide, but few water treaties have shown the resilience of the IWT—until now. Unlike the European Water Framework Directives or the voluntary dispute mechanisms for the Mekong, the IWT’s hybrid approach of neutral experts and optional arbitration has, until now, been lauded for its balance between technical and legal adjudication. India’s suspensive move and jurisdictional rejection echo recent global trends toward “treaty nationalism,” where states assert domestic law and sovereign interests as limits on international fora. 

Diplomatic and Geopolitical Fallout: Who Holds the Cards Now? 

Legal Implications for Practitioners 

• Void Awards & Enforcement: As India claims awards are “void,” the enforceability of PCA pronouncements remains theoretical unless backed by international pressure or reciprocal recognition. India’s move emboldens states to challenge multilateral arbitral decisions, raising questions about the universality and authority of forums like the PCA. 

• Precedent for Treaty Suspension: India’s explicit invocation of national security and terrorism as grounds for suspending its treaty obligations sets a high bar for proving “material breach,” likely to be cited in other disputes where geopolitics and legal obligations intersect. 

Diplomatic Standoff 

The deep freeze may not mean permanent disengagement. As legal scholars note, water pressure and climate risks leave “no alternative to Indus water cooperation—it requires both sides to re-engage and update the treaty or create a new framework”. India’s manoeuvre, while provocative, may ultimately push both states toward renegotiation and modernisation of the ageing and strained IWT. 

Will India’s Hardline Unilaterally Reshape Treaty Law? 

India’s rejection of the PCA’s jurisdiction marks a decisive moment for the future of transboundary dispute resolution. The doctrinal rigidity on sovereignty, refusal of externally-imposed jurisdiction, and direct linkage of treaty obligations to national security set a potent precedent—one that complicates international jurisprudence but may force overdue legal and diplomatic innovation. Practitioners and scholars must watch for further developments, as the IWT’s future—once a model for conflict-resilient water-sharing—now stands at a legal and geopolitical crossroads.