Arbitration court says India must uphold Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan

THE HAGUE (Kashmir English): The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on Monday ordered India to suspend work on hydro projects and uphold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan.

The court said that the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force and that India had no legal basis to unilaterally terminate or suspend the agreement.

It added that New Delhi must ensure that work on hydroelectric projects in the disputed Kashmir region remains within the limitations and requirements prescribed under the treaty.

“India must observe its obligations under the Treaty, including those ‌relating ⁠to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers,” the international court said.

According to the press release, the arbitration court issued an award on the status of the IWT in respect of India’s decision on abeyance and an order on Pakistan’s application dated March 4 regarding interim measures concerning the Ratle hydro-electric plant.

It added that Pakistan requested the Court of Arbitration to address the design of certain components of the run-of-river hydro-electric projects that India is permitted by the Indus Waters Treaty to construct on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab Rivers and their tributaries (“Western Rivers”), before those rivers flow into Pakistan.

Furthermore, in its ruling, the PCA said it “examined the potential grounds upon which India could suspend or terminate the treaty, including the grounds cited by India in its public statements.”

“In a unanimous decision, the court found that none of these grounds could justify suspension or termination of the treaty.”

It declared that “the IWT remains fully in force, and India must observe its obligations under the treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers.”

In the order on interim measures, the court ruling said that it considered a “request from Pakistan for the imposition of measures limiting construction works at the RHEP pending the Neutral Expert’s decision on whether the RHEP design complies with the Treaty.”

In a unanimous decision, the Court decided to impose measures prohibiting India from concreting the RHEP dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after a neutral expert, appointed by the World Bank, would judge by July 2027.

The Court also “imposed a reporting measure relating to the RHEP Construction Schedule until shortly after the Neutral Expert’s final decision.” The Court, however, declined to grant two other measures requested by Pakistan.

On the other hand, New Delhi rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s order, saying it had never recognised the existence of the “illegally constituted” court in The Hague.

“The Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions and its pronouncements, now or in the future, will have no effect on India’s actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India,” the external affairs ministry said in a statement.

Pakistan welcomes PCA’s decision

Meanwhile, the Government of Pakistan welcomed the arbitration court’s findings and said the government will now carefully consider the details 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 in a manner that reflects the binding legal obligations of both sides.

“The Court’s Press Release also makes clear that the Court unanimously decided to impose measures prohibiting India from concreting the RHEP dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert’s final decision, which is expected in July 2027,” the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting posted on X.

“Further, the Court also imposed a reporting measure relating to the Construction Schedule until shortly after the Neutral Expert’s final decision. Pakistan welcomes this finding by the Court that interim measures are warranted, as well as the measures ordered by the Court,” the post added.