India has rejected the award of the “so-called Court of Arbitration” on issues of general interpretation of Indus Waters Treaty, which New Delhi has kept in abeyance following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
Responding to queries on the latest award given by the Court of Arbitration, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “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’,” Jaiswal said.
“As reiterated in our press release of 27 June 2025, the IWT 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,” he said.
On August 8, 2025, the Court of Arbitration, chaired by Prof Sean D Murphy of the US, gave an award that “addresses certain questions concerning the overall interpretation and application of the Treaty, including in relation to Article III (which concerns the Western Rivers) and Paragraph 8 of Annexure D (which concerns new run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India may construct on the Western Rivers).”
India has not participated in the arbitration proceedings and has repeatedly objected to the competence of the court.
Earlier, the Court of Arbitration had given its Award on Competence on July 6, 2023, in which it held that India’s non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence. On June 27, it gave a Supplemental Award on Competence, stating that “India’s position that it is holding the Treaty in ‘abeyance’, however that position may be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence.” India has opposed the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration since its constitution in October 2022, saying it could not be “compelled to recognise illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty” and boycotted the court hearings. It, however, continued participating in the “Treaty-consistent Neutral Expert proceedings”.
