India rejects ‘illegally constituted’ Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty, calls it ‘null’ and ‘void’

India earlier questioned such "charades" at Pakistan's behest, terming them as "desperate attempts" to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism.

India rejected the recent award issued by the ‘illegally constituted’ Court of Arbitration (CoA), purportedly, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) called the ‘purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) 1960 ' as "null and void", on Saturday. "The illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) has, on 15 May 2026, issued what it termed an award concerning maximum pondage supplemental to the award on issues of general interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty," Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated in response to media queries on the issue.

"India categorically rejects the present so-called award, just as it has firmly rejected all prior pronouncements of the illegally constituted CoA. 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," he further added.

Also Read: ‘They decide whether they want to be part of geography, history or not’: Army Chief’s stern warning to Pakistan

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which was signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960, concerning the utilisation of the waters of the Indus system rivers.
The Indian government placed the IWT in abeyance after the deadly  Pahalgam terror attack, exercising its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjured its support for cross-border terrorism.

"Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. 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," the MEA had stated in June 2025.

Last year, the MEA had slammed the "so-called" Court of Arbitration for issuing what it characterized as a "supplemental award” on its competence concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Also Read: Pakistan reacts to RSS’ call for keeping the dialogue window open between India-Pak

"India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India’s position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void," the MEA had then responded to the CoA's move.

India questioned such "charades" at Pakistan's behest, terming them as "desperate attempts" to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism.

"Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums," the MEA stated earlier.

Earlier today, an analysis published in European Times, Greek lawyer and journalist Dimitra Staikou argued that by placing the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance after the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, India has effectively ended the long-standing separation between water-sharing and terrorism issues.

The report further noted that India has brought the treaty into Pakistan’s “strategic cost calculus.”

Water can no longer be treated as an assured, insulated entitlement but as a contingent variable linked to Pakistan’s behaviour on cross-border terrorism.

The abeyance of the IWT serves a dual purpose, imposing real costs on Pakistan’s terrorism policy while creating space for a future treaty better suited to current demographic, environmental, and strategic realities. The signal sent by India is strong and lasting, even if the abeyance itself is reversible.

(with IANS inputs)