HAGUE (MNN); The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between Pakistan and India remains fully in force, declaring that India has no legal grounds to unilaterally suspend or place the decades-old water-sharing agreement in abeyance.
In a unanimous decision issued on Monday, the Hague-based court also ordered interim measures restricting India from carrying out certain construction work on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Project in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
The PCA said India must continue to fulfil its obligations under the 1960 treaty, including provisions governing the design and operation of hydro-electric projects on the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — which are largely allocated to Pakistan.
The court ruled that India could not justify its decision to suspend the treaty and found that none of the grounds cited by New Delhi was sufficient to terminate or place the agreement in abeyance.
“The treaty remains fully in force,” the PCA said, adding that India must continue to observe its obligations under the agreement.
Restrictions on Ratle Hydro Project
The ruling also addressed Pakistan’s request for interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant.
The PCA unanimously ordered India not to concrete the Ratle dam wall and power intake structure above specified levels until 90 days after a World Bank-appointed neutral expert issues a final decision on the project.
The court also directed India to provide information regarding the Ratle project’s construction schedule.
The neutral expert is expected to issue a final ruling in July 2027 on whether the Kishenganga and Ratle hydro-electric projects comply with the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.
The PCA declined two other interim measures requested by Pakistan.
India Cannot Unilaterally Suspend Treaty
The court noted that the Indus Waters Treaty contains no provision allowing either Pakistan or India to unilaterally terminate, suspend or place the agreement in “abeyance”.
According to the ruling, the treaty can only be modified or terminated through a further agreement jointly adopted by both countries.
The PCA examined possible legal arguments raised by India, including claims related to sovereignty, alleged treaty violations, changing circumstances, cross-border terrorism, armed conflict and climate change.
However, the five-member court unanimously concluded that none of these arguments provided legal justification for suspending or terminating the treaty.
The court rejected the argument that sovereignty could allow a country to unilaterally suspend an international treaty.
It also found that Pakistan was not legally obligated under the IWT to enter negotiations for treaty amendments, noting that Islamabad had, in fact, shown willingness to discuss possible modifications with New Delhi.
Terrorism Claims Rejected as Basis for Suspension
The PCA also examined India’s claims regarding cross-border terrorism, which New Delhi had cited while placing the treaty in abeyance.
The court observed that the Indus Waters Treaty deals specifically with rights and obligations relating to the use of Indus Basin waters and does not govern issues related to terrorism or the use of force.
It further noted that India had continued constructing hydro-electric projects on the western rivers, indicating that the alleged incidents had not prevented India from exercising its rights under the treaty.
The court said that even if India’s allegations were assumed to be correct, they would not amount to a material breach of the treaty by Pakistan.
No Fundamental Change of Circumstances
The PCA also considered India’s arguments regarding demographic changes, increasing energy requirements, developments in dam technology, climate change and security concerns.
However, the court found that the legal requirements needed to establish a “fundamental change of circumstances” had not been met.
The PCA further noted that the Indus Waters Treaty was designed to remain operational even during armed conflict.
It also rejected the possibility that India’s action could be justified as a lawful countermeasure against Pakistan.
Pakistan Welcomes PCA Ruling
Pakistan welcomed the findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, saying India remains legally bound by its obligations under the Indus Waters Treaty.
The government also welcomed the interim measures imposed on the Ratle hydro-electric project.
Islamabad said it would carefully examine the detailed award and decision once formally published and consider how the ruling could help restore engagement between Pakistan and India under the treaty.
India Rejects Verdict
India, however, rejected the PCA’s ruling and said it did not recognise the jurisdiction of the court.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs said the “so-called Court of Arbitration” had no jurisdiction to rule on what it described as India’s sovereign decisions.
India did not participate in the proceedings by submitting written or oral arguments. However, the PCA said it examined India’s position through official communications, statements made to Pakistan and the neutral expert, and public remarks by Indian officials.
Long-Running Water Dispute
The dispute concerns the design and operation of Indian run-of-river hydro-electric projects on the western rivers before they enter Pakistan.
Under the Indus Waters Treaty, the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — are allocated to India, while Pakistan has primary rights over the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.
The treaty, signed in 1960, also established mechanisms for cooperation, information sharing and dispute resolution between the two countries.
Pakistan initiated arbitration proceedings over the western rivers projects in August 2016.
After the World Bank temporarily paused the dispute-resolution process in December 2016, proceedings resumed in 2022.
Following India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance in April 2025, Pakistan asked the PCA to determine the legal status of the agreement.
The court had earlier ruled that India’s decision could not limit its authority to hear the dispute. In its latest ruling, the PCA has now declared that the treaty remains fully operational and binding on both countries.
