New Delhi: The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague has unanimously ruled that India’s declaration placing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) “in abeyance” was not permissible under international law and had no legal effect.
The tribunal—chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy with judges from Belgium, the US, Jordan and Australia—held on 31 August that neither the treaty nor international law provides any basis for a unilateral suspension or termination. It said the treaty remained fully binding.
India has officially said that it does not recognise the existence of the Court of Arbitration and, therefore, maintains that its orders are without effect.
It rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s order setting aside its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, saying the “illegally-constituted” body has no jurisdiction to comment on New Delhi’s sovereign decisions.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said India’s decision to hold the IWT in abeyance remains in force.
“Today, the illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) has issued what it termed as an award concerning Interim Measures and Status of the Indus Waters Treaty,” the MEA said. “This so-called court was constituted by the World Bank in patent breach of the terms of the Treaty and India categorically rejects its so-called award, just as it has firmly rejected all prior pronouncements by this illegally constituted body.”
The Court of Arbitration, the MEA said, has “no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions”.
Under Article IX of the IWT, arbitral awards are final and binding only when both parties agree to the tribunal’s constitution. India objected to the appointment of a World Bank-appointed neutral expert in the IWT proceedings.
Although India chose not to submit written or oral pleadings, the court considered its publicly stated positions and official communications.
The court ruled that the treaty had neither been terminated nor its operation suspended, and it remains fully in force. India remains bound by and must observe its obligations under the treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers and those associated dispute settlement.
The court also imposed interim restrictions on India’s Ratle Hydro‑Electric Plant (RHEP), prohibiting the concreting of key structures for 90 days after the neutral expert delivers a technical compliance decision, which is expected in July 2027.
Background of the case
The Indus Waters Treaty is a World Bank-anchored water‑sharing agreement signed in 1960. It divides the six rivers of the Indus basin. India gets full rights of use over the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej), while Pakistan gets the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab), with India allowed only limited regulated use.
After terrorists killed 26 people in Pahalgam on 22 April, 2025, India announced that the Indus Waters Treaty would be held ‘in abeyance’ until Pakistan renounced its support for cross‑border terrorism.
The court considered the present status of the IWT in light of India’s decision in another ongoing case. In 2016, Pakistan had raised objections to India’s Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project (KHEP) and RHEP hydro‑electric projects on the western rivers.
Pakistan alleged that certain design features of these projects breached the treaty’s compliance limits. To safeguard its rights, Islamabad sought interim measures to halt specific construction activities, arguing that continued construction could prejudice the dispute‑settlement process.
Since both these hydroelectric projects lie on the western rivers, they fall under Article III of the IWT, which allocates those rivers to Pakistan for exclusive use. India is only permitted domestic, non‑consumptive uses like flood control, for wildlife and agricultural purposes.
After India’s April 2025 IWT suspension declaration, Pakistan again approached the Court of Arbitration. It filed submissions asking the tribunal to rule on whether India’s “abeyance” affected the court’s competence and the treaty’s status. In March 2026, Pakistan requested interim measures in relation to the construction of the RHEP.
Upon receiving Pakistan’s application, the court invited India to confirm its participation. India did not respond. The court directed Pakistan to file a detailed memorial and convened the hearings.
Although India made no written or oral submissions, the court, consistent with international practice, took account of India’s positions from its official communications to Pakistan and the neutral expert, as well as public statements by Indian officials.
In June 2025, the court held it remained competent to proceed. “The source of such competence is the consent of the Parties when signing and ratifying the Treaty, falls to be decided by the Court itself and not by either Party alone. The Court has remained acutely aware that it is under a continuing duty to verify that it is competent and has jurisdiction over the dispute before it,” it said.
Also Read: India has rejected The Hague’s Indus ruling. Now it must act on the rivers
Legal reasoning for declaring the suspension invalid
The court then looked at the treaty’s text. It noted that the treaty does not allow one party to suspend or terminate it unilaterally. Instead, it remains in force unless both India and Pakistan agree to modify or end it through a new treaty.
Next, the court considered whether international law provided grounds for India’s action. India argued that its sovereignty justified its decision.
The court rejected this argument. “There is no rule allowing a State to unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty based on its ‘sovereignty’; rather, all States, including India, are bound to their treaties and must perform them, based on the fundamental principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ (agreements must be kept),” it said.
The court noted that international law recognises only a few, highly restricted grounds on which a State may unilaterally suspend or terminate a treaty.
It examined India’s official statements to identify the grounds it appeared to invoke in support of its “abeyance” declaration. The court addressed India’s contention that Pakistan had breached the “cooperative spirit” of the IWT by declining to negotiate modifications.
It held that no provision of the treaty imposes any obligation on either party to enter into negotiations for amendment, and, therefore, such conduct cannot amount to a material breach of the treaty to support termination.
Moreover, upon review of the diplomatic correspondence, the court stated that it found evidence that Pakistan had expressed willingness to engage with India on possible treaty adjustments.
The court next examined India’s allegation that Pakistan had interfered with its treaty rights by objecting to hydro‑electric projects before the Indus Waters Commission and initiating dispute settlement proceedings.
It recalled that “the Treaty did not accord either Party absolute rights, but rather delimited rights and obligations within a framework of cooperation (including express mechanisms for Pakistani objections and for settlement of disputes between the Parties)”.
The court also mentioned that India had not alleged any abuse of process through the mechanisms prescribed in the treaty. Upon reviewing the commission’s record, the court concluded that “there was no basis to find that Pakistan had breached the Treaty by raising objections or pursuing dispute settlement”.
The court also turned to India’s allegation that Pakistan’s sponsorship of cross‑border terrorism had obstructed India’s “enjoyment of rights”.
Terrorism & international armed conflict
While acknowledging the serious nature of the allegation, the court held that, even if assumed true, such conduct would not amount to a material breach of the treaty. It emphasised that the treaty is confined to regulating the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the use of the waters of the Indus River system.
The court held that it did not find evidence that the alleged terrorism had impeded India’s ability to construct its hydro electric power plants (HEP) on the western rivers, and instead noted that India has built and is building many such HEPs.
It also examined whether India could invoke the “doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances” to suspend or terminate the treaty. India cited demographic shifts, rising energy needs, advances in dam technology, escalating cross-border terrorism and climate change.
The court held that none met the strict treaty law conditions, as these changes were either foreseeable at the time of signing, not central to the parties’ consent or did not radically alter India’s obligations.
The court also considered whether the existence of an international armed conflict between India and Pakistan could justify the suspension or termination of the treaty. The court concluded that “such a conflict did not exist at the present time; and that, in any event, the Treaty was of a type that would remain operational during such a conflict”.
The court noted that the treaty had remained in force through multiple armed conflicts since 1960.
Having rejected suspension or termination under treaty law, the court considered whether India’s “abeyance” could qualify as a lawful countermeasure against Pakistan.
It held the necessary conditions had not been met, and the suspension would impair India’s human rights obligations, prevent resumption of treaty performance and disable dispute‑settlement mechanisms.
The court concluded that India’s decision on “abeyance” of the treaty was not permissible under the treaty or other applicable rules of international law. Accordingly, the court found that the treaty has neither been terminated nor its operation suspended, and remains fully in force.
Jurisdiction
In its Order on Interim Measures, the court unanimously granted three of Pakistan’s requests, subject to modifications, and declined two.
The court began by affirming its authority to grant interim measures. This authority, the court explained, extends not only to measures specifically requested by a party but also to those the court considers necessary to protect the integrity of proceedings before the neutral expert.
In the present case, the court held that its power clearly encompassed protective measures designed to preserve the status quo until the neutral expert could render a final determination.
The court reviewed the basic conditions for granting interim measures and the requirement of an adequate hearing. “In circumstances where Pakistan actively participated and where India received notice and had an opportunity to present written and oral submissions but declined to do so, the Court found that this requirement was satisfied.”
Pakistan had to show that its claimed rights under the treaty were at least arguable. The court examined its objections to the RHEP’s design features—the spillway, power intake, freeboard and operating pool—and concluded that these rights were plausible under the treaty framework.
Interim measures
The court then considered whether each interim measure was needed to protect Pakistan’s interests, prevent prejudice to the final resolution or avoid aggravating the dispute.
The court found that three measures met this test.
The first stopped India from concreting the dam wall above a certain level until the neutral expert gave his decision on the RHEP design compliance.
This was necessary because India’s construction schedule showed major concreting would be finished before the neutral expert ruled, and removing reinforced concrete later would be extremely difficult and costly.
The second measure imposed the same restriction on the RHEP’s power intake structure, for the same reasons. The first and second measures were ordered to remain in force until 90 days after the neutral expert issues the final decision.
The third measure required India to notify the court, the neutral expert and Pakistan of any changes to its construction schedule. The court said this was essential because the schedule underpins the other measures. India had stopped sharing updates voluntarily, and transparency was needed to protect the process.
This will remain in force until the neutral expert delivers his final decision. The court further clarified that these interim measures are subject to revision or supplementation at any time, should circumstances so require.
The court declined two other measures sought by Pakistan, saying they were unnecessary.
Alfreza Ahmed is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: How Pak weaponised Indus Water Treaty, & India’s long overdue reckoning