Citing lack of jurisdiction, India rejects Hague court’s Indus Waters Treaty ruling
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) rejected a ruling issued by a Court of Arbitration sitting at The Hague on matters concerning the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960.
India stated it has "never recognised the existence in law" of this Court of Arbitration, terming it "illegally constituted."
The MEA reiterated that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to pronounce on India's sovereign decisions, and that its rulings — past or future — will have no bearing on India's ongoing hydropower project activities on the western rivers.
India's decision to hold the IWT in abeyance, announced on April 23, 2025 following a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, continues to remain in force.
The ruling reportedly concerned interim measures relating to hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, including the Kishenganga and Ratle projects on the Jhelum and Chenab.
The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960
The IWT is a water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan, signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Ayub Khan, with the World Bank as a signatory/facilitator. It followed nearly a decade of World Bank-mediated negotiations after the 1947 Partition split the Indus basin's irrigation infrastructure between the two countries.
The rejected ruling relates directly to the treaty's dispute-resolution architecture and to India's projects on the western rivers, which the treaty permits within strict technical parameters (e.g., limited pondage and gated spillway design) — the very design features at issue in disputes like Kishenganga and Ratle.
Article IX: Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Article IX of the IWT lays out a graduated, three-tier mechanism for resolving disagreements: first through the Permanent Indus Commission, then (for technical "differences") a Neutral Expert appointed with World Bank involvement, and finally (for legal "disputes" involving treaty interpretation) a seven-member Court of Arbitration.
India's rejection rests squarely on this jurisdictional objection — that a Court of Arbitration was set up in parallel with, rather than after, the Neutral Expert process, which India argues is a "patent breach" of Article IX's sequencing.
Treaty Abeyance and International Law on Treaty Suspension
"Holding a treaty in abeyance" is distinct from formal withdrawal or termination. Under customary international law principles (reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which India is not a full party but which is widely regarded as codifying custom), a state may suspend treaty performance in response to a fundamental change of circumstances or a material breach by the other party, though the legal characterisation of the IWT's "abeyance" remains contested.
Key Details
- The IWT itself contains no explicit exit or suspension clause, which is part of why India's April 2025 move was described as unprecedented.
- India has since paused hydrological data-sharing and Permanent Indus Commission meetings with Pakistan.
- This is a live example of the tension between treaty-based dispute resolution and a state's assertion of sovereign national-security prerogatives — a recurring Mains theme in India's international law posture.
The Hague ruling being rejected is itself downstream of this abeyance decision — Pakistan has continued to press its case through the arbitration route even as India treats the treaty's operative provisions, including Article IX, as suspended.
- Indus Waters Treaty signed: September 19, 1960, Karachi, between India and Pakistan, with the World Bank as a signatory.
- Eastern rivers (India): Ravi, Beas, Sutlej — about 33 MAF/year.
- Western rivers (Pakistan, with limited Indian use rights): Indus, Chenab, Jhelum — over 80 MAF/year.
- India announced the treaty's abeyance on April 23, 2025, after a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
- Disputed projects: Kishenganga (Jhelum) and Ratle (Chenab) hydroelectric projects — Ratle is an 850 MW project.
- Article IX provides a three-tier mechanism: Permanent Indus Commission → Neutral Expert → Court of Arbitration (7 members).