India has rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that directed New Delhi to continue following the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, saying the tribunal has no authority over India’s sovereign decisions, UNB reports citing Al Jazeera.
India suspended the decades-old water-sharing agreement in April last year after blaming Pakistan for an attack at a tourist site in Kashmir that killed 26 people.
New Delhi said two of the three attackers were Pakistani. Islamabad has denied any involvement in the attack.
The dispute has once again brought the long-running Kashmir conflict to the centre of tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, has survived three wars between India and Pakistan. The river system covered by the agreement provides water for about 80% of Pakistan’s agricultural land.
The international tribunal ruled Monday that the treaty remains legally binding and that India had no valid basis to suspend or end it.
It also ordered India to limit construction work on the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant in Kashmir. Under the order, work on parts of the dam, including the dam wall and power intake structure, must not go beyond specified levels.
The restrictions will remain in place until 90 days after a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank delivers a decision, which is expected by July 2027.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs, however, said New Delhi does not recognise the tribunal’s authority over the dispute and “categorically” rejected its ruling.
“This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions,” the ministry said in a statement.
It also said any present or future decisions by the tribunal would not affect India’s actions regarding projects being developed by the country.
India is officially a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Pakistan welcomed the tribunal’s interim measures. The Pakistani government said it was reviewing the ruling and considering how it could help restore engagement under the treaty’s legally binding provisions.