India has categorically rejected the latest award issued by the so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), describing the tribunal as “illegally constituted” and its decisions as “null and void.” In an official response to media queries, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that award on “maximum pondage supplemental to the award on issues of general interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty” was issued on 15th May by “the illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration”.
The full statement by Official Spokesperson Shri Randhir Jaiswal reads: “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. 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.”
The Arbitration Award
The May 15 award was a supplemental ruling focused on the technical issue of “maximum pondage”, the limited temporary storage of water permitted in run-of-river hydroelectric projects that India is allowed to build on the western rivers of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab under the 1960 IWT. This followed the CoA’s earlier August 2025 Award on Issues of General Interpretation and a subsequent phase of proceedings on how India must calculate installed capacity, anticipated load, and pondage limits for such projects.
The dispute originated from Pakistan’s objections to the design of Indian projects such as the Kishanganga (on the Jhelum) and Ratle (on the Chenab) hydroelectric plants.
The IWT, brokered by the World Bank, divides the use of the six rivers of the Indus system between India and Pakistan. Pakistan initiated arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking adjudication on design parameters of Indian projects. India has consistently maintained that these technical “differences” should be resolved through the Treaty’s Neutral Expert mechanism rather than a full Court of Arbitration, which it views as lacking jurisdiction.
India has refused to participate in the CoA proceedings and has held the entire Treaty in abeyance in response to Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism.
This is not the first time India has dismissed the CoA’s rulings. New Delhi has rejected all prior pronouncements from the tribunal on similar grounds, including decisions on competence and general interpretation.
