The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MoIB) has welcomed the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s (PCA) finding that India remains bound by the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), including its obligations concerning hydro-electric projects on the western rivers.
The ministry said on Monday that Islamabad also welcomed the court’s decision regarding the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP) and the measures imposed on India in relation to construction work at the project.
The government “will now be giving careful consideration to the detail of the award and decision, pending their publication, and how these may best assist in finding a pathway back to the parties’ engagement under the treaty,” the ministry said.
The Hague-based court on Monday ruled that the IWT remains fully in force and found that India had no grounds to suspend or terminate the 1960 water-sharing agreement. The PCA examined possible grounds cited by India for placing the treaty in abeyance and concluded unanimously that none could justify suspension or termination.
The court said that the treaty requires India to observe its obligations, including provisions governing the design and operation of hydro-electric projects on the western rivers.
Under the IWT, the eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej are allocated to India, while the western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are largely allocated to Pakistan. The agreement also provides mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution.
The court also imposed interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP), prohibiting India from concreting the dam wall and power intake structure above specified levels until 90 days after the World Bank-appointed neutral expert issues a final decision.
The Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and RHEP are also part of proceedings before the neutral expert, who is expected to issue a final decision in July 2027 on whether the projects comply with the IWT.
The PCA said that the treaty does not allow either party to unilaterally terminate, suspend or place it in “abeyance”. According to the court, the agreement remains in force unless India and Pakistan jointly modify or terminate it through a further treaty.
India did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and rejected the PCA ruling.
India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it did not recognise the court and “categorically” rejected the verdict, arguing that the “Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions”.
The PCA said that it nevertheless considered India’s positions based on statements and conduct outside the proceedings, including communications by Indian officials and government correspondence with Pakistan and the neutral expert.
The court also rejected India’s argument that Pakistan’s failure to negotiate changes to the IWT amounted to a material breach, saying that the treaty did not require Pakistan to enter such negotiations. It noted that Pakistan had been willing to discuss treaty modifications with India.
On India’s allegations of cross-border terrorism, the PCA said that the IWT does not address terrorism or the use of force and governs rights and obligations concerning the Indus waters.
The court also said that the IWT was designed to remain operational during armed conflict and found that there was no armed conflict at present. The PCA further considered whether India’s decision could qualify as a countermeasure against an earlier violation of international law by Pakistan, but found that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.
