India's rejection of the 15 May 2026 award by the Hague-based Court of Arbitration (CoA) — which it considers illegally constituted — as 'null and void' is rooted in a procedural interpretation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)'s own dispute resolution framework. According to a report in the American magazine The National Interest, New Delhi's objection is not to arbitration in principle but to the specific forum, and India maintains it remains willing to be bound by the mechanism the treaty itself prescribes.

India's Position on the Court of Arbitration

New Delhi has consistently held — without deviation since April 2025 — that the CoA was improperly constituted and has therefore refused to nominate arbitrators or participate in its proceedings. Any awards issued by the tribunal are considered invalid from inception, according to the Indian government's position.

The 15 May 2026 award concerned permissible water storage at Indian hydroelectric projects on the western rivers of the Indus basin. India's rejection reiterated that the IWT remains in abeyance, a status it imposed following the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 civilians were killed by Pakistan-backed terrorists. On 3 July 2026, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reaffirmed that the suspension would hold until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably' abandoned its support for cross-border terrorism.

Six Decades of Indian Compliance

The report highlights a striking record of Indian adherence to the treaty. Despite three wars with Pakistan — in 1965, 1971, and 1999 — and major terror attacks including the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, both attributed to groups backed by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), India continued to honour its IWT obligations throughout. Water flows to Pakistan were uninterrupted across all these episodes.

According to the report, India's position is that it has extended the treaty six decades of good faith, only to be met with systematic obstruction through the treaty's own dispute machinery.

How Pakistan Used the Treaty Against Indian Projects

The report details how Pakistan deployed the IWT's dispute resolution mechanism to delay or constrain Indian infrastructure on the western rivers. Objections forced a lower dam and reduced storage capacity at Salal. The Tulbul navigation project was frozen for decades. Projects at Kishenganga, Ratle, and Baglihar were each drawn into prolonged proceedings that, according to the report, raised costs and slowed construction — outcomes Pakistan could not have achieved through direct means.

What India Has and Has Not Done

India's current suspension is described in the report as 'calibrated' and 'reversible'. New Delhi has paused hydrological data-sharing, meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission, and engagement with the treaty's dispute resolution mechanism. Critically, it has not diverted, dammed, or blocked the western rivers — water continues to reach Pakistan.

Pakistan's Response and the Contrast in Posture

Pakistan's reaction has been markedly different in tone. Reportedly, Pakistan's defence minister described any interference with the rivers as 'an act of war', and its army chief warned that Indian dams could be 'struck with missiles'. The report notes that a non-forcible and reversible measure has thus been met with the language of military force — a contrast, it argues, that sits uneasily with Pakistan's claim to approach the treaty as a partner in good faith.

As the diplomatic standoff continues, the trajectory of the IWT will hinge on whether Pakistan meets New Delhi's stated condition — the credible and irreversible abandonment of cross-border terrorism — a threshold that, as of now, remains unmet.