India Slams Hague Court Ruling on Hydro Projects, Calls It a Dangerous Charade Backed by Pakistan

India Slams Hague Court Over Hydro Project Arbitration

India Slams Hague Court decision with strong criticism, calling the tribunal “illegal” and “brazen violation of the Indus Waters Treaty.” The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague had recently ruled that it could proceed with Pakistan’s objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects in Jammu and Kashmir—despite New Delhi suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. India, however, firmly rejects The Hague court’s authority, saying it never recognized its jurisdiction.

India Slams Hague Court on Legality of Tribunal

Indian authorities argue that the tribunal in The Hague has no legal standing. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) emphasized that India Slams Hague Court proceedings because the court was “purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty… albeit in brazen violation of it.” As India never consented to this arbitration and never participated in its proceedings since the 2016 objections, any ruling from the PCA is considered illegal and void according to the MEA.

India Slams Hague Court: Background of the Dispute

Pakistan raised objections in 2016 to design aspects of India’s Kishenganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) projects. Initially, it sought the appointment of a neutral expert under treaty provisions. However, in a sharp turn, Pakistan demanded a full Court of Arbitration. The World Bank appointed both mechanisms, but India refused to recognize the arbitration court and participated only with the neutral expert—clearly distinguishing between the two formats.

India Slams Hague Court Despite Treaty Suspension

India’s government announced on April 23 that the Indus Waters Treaty would be suspended. This move came shortly after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 civilians were killed. In response, India imposed diplomatic and economic measures against Pakistan and declared that the treaty would remain in abeyance until Pakistan credibly renounces support for cross-border terrorism.

The Hague tribunal ruled that suspension of the treaty does not limit its competence, and its verdict would be “binding and without appeal.” India promptly rejected this decision, arguing that as long as the treaty remains in abeyance, no court—even the Hague tribunal—can claim jurisdiction over India’s sovereign actions.

India Slams Hague Court: Sovereign Right vs. International Arbitration

The MEA insisted that India acted within its sovereign rights. India Slams Hague Court on the basis that India can place the treaty on hold under international law. The country further argued that because the tribunal lacks legal legitimacy, it does not possess authority to evaluate India’s suspension actions.

The MEA stated:

“No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India’s actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign.”

India Slams Hague Court, Labels Ruling “Charade at Pakistan’s Behest”

In sharp rhetoric, India called the PCA’s supplementary ruling the “latest charade at Pakistan’s behest.” The MEA also denounced Pakistan’s repeated misuse of international forums:

“Pakistan’s resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades‑long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums.”

India therefore sees the tribunal’s actions as politically motivated and asserts it won’t stand for a court that is not grounded in legal consent.

India Slams Hague Court Amid Rising Tensions

Pakistan has threatened to escalate the issue further, indicating it may approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if India diverts water allocated under the treaty—territory India insists is rightfully available for run-of-river hydropower. Earlier statements from Pakistani leaders described such action as tantamount to an “act of war.” Against this backdrop, India is prepared to defend its position diplomatically and legally.

India Slams Hague Court: Understanding the Indus Waters Treaty

The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, divides the Indus basin waters—western rivers like Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab go to Pakistan, while eastern tributaries (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) go to India. The treaty allows India to construct limited hydropower facilities on western rivers. India asserts that the Kishenganga and Ratle projects comply fully with these provisions. India Slams Hague Court because it believes arbitration under PCA undermines the structured mechanisms already embedded in the treaty.

India Slams Hague Court: What This Means for Diplomacy

By rejecting Hague tribunal authority, India signals to Pakistan and the wider world that it firmly defends its sovereign rights. It remains open to dialogue within authorized treaty frameworks but refuses to submit to what it regards as illegitimate judicial overreach. The heated rhetoric suggests that water disputes are now enmeshed with broader security and diplomatic tensions, making resolution more complex.

India Slams Hague Court: Conclusion & Outlook

India’s assertive stance—India Slams Hague Court and reaffirms its sovereign rights—sets a precedent for handling international treaty disputes. The refusal to accept an external arbitration body underlines India’s demand for lawful, bilateral mechanisms aligned with treaty protocols. Diplomatic battles may escalate, but India’s position reflects a clear, consistent policy: its hydropower projects will proceed under treaty rights, and no external court lacking consent or jurisdiction will impede them.

Read more: Shefali Jariwala Death Shocker