ISLAMABAD: The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force, ordering India to continue observing its obligations under the agreement, including those governing the design and operation of hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers.
The Hague-based Court of Arbitration issued an Award on the status of the Indus Waters Treaty and a separate Order on interim measures concerning India’s Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant, seen by Pakistan TV Digital, in proceedings initiated by Pakistan under the treaty’s dispute-settlement mechanism.
In a unanimous decision, the Court rejected the grounds cited by India for placing the treaty in “abeyance,” concluding that none could justify its suspension or termination.
“Accordingly, the Indus Waters Treaty 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,” the Court said.
The Court further concluded that India’s decision to place the treaty in “abeyance” was “not permissible” under the treaty or other applicable rules of international law.
The ruling is significant for Pakistan because the Indus Waters Treaty governs the allocation and use of the Indus River system between the two countries and provides mechanisms for addressing disputes over water projects.
India’s ‘abeyance’ decision
On April 23 last year following an attack by armed individuals in the Pahalgam area in Indian-occupied Kashmir, New Delhi announced that the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 would be held in “abeyance” with immediate effect.
India said it would keep the treaty in “abeyance,” accusing Pakistan of supporting “crossborder terrorism” and demanding that Islamabad “credibly and irrevocably abjure” such support before restoring the treaty.
Pakistan rejected India’s allegations linking it to the Pahalgam attack, noting the absence of credible or verifiable evidence and calling for an independent, transparent and credible investigation. Islamabad maintained that India could not use unsubstantiated allegations as a basis for unilaterally suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and subsequently challenged the legal status of India’s decision before the Court of Arbitration.
Earlier this year Islamabad applied to the Court to determine whether the treaty remained in force following New Delhi’s decision.
The Court invited India to indicate whether it intended to participate in that phase of the proceedings. According to the Court, India did not respond.
“Receiving no response from India, the Court directed Pakistan to file a written memorial further detailing its application and held a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague from 26 to 28 April 2026,” the Court said.
While India did not make written or oral submissions in response to Pakistan’s application, the Court said it took into account India’s positions to the extent they could be discerned from statements and conduct outside the proceedings.
Court rejects India’s grounds for suspension
The Court first examined the meaning of India’s use of the term “abeyance,” finding it ambiguous in Indian public statements, although those statements largely reflected an understanding that the treaty had been suspended.
The Court noted that “abeyance” is not a term used in the Indus Waters Treaty and has no technical meaning in international law, where the relevant concepts are generally “suspension” and “termination.”
“The Court concluded that it would proceed on the basis that India may be claiming that the Treaty is either suspended or terminated,” the ruling said.
The Court then examined whether India could suspend or terminate the treaty under its own provisions or applicable international law.
It found that the treaty does not allow either country to unilaterally suspend or terminate its operation.
Instead, the treaty remains in force unless India and Pakistan jointly modify or terminate it through a further treaty.
The Court also rejected India’s reliance on sovereignty as a basis for unilaterally suspending the agreement.
It said there was “no rule allowing a State to unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty based on its ‘sovereignty’.”
The Court invoked the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, that agreements must be kept, saying all states, including India, are bound to perform their treaty obligations.
Court rejects claims of Pakistan’s treaty breach
The Court examined several circumstances India had cited as alleged breaches by Pakistan, including what India described as Pakistan’s unwillingness to negotiate changes to the treaty and the creation of “legal roadblocks” to Indian hydro-electric projects.
The Court found that the treaty did not require Pakistan to enter negotiations to modify the agreement and therefore Pakistan’s position could not constitute a material breach.
It also found no basis for concluding that Pakistan had breached the treaty by raising objections to Indian projects or pursuing dispute-settlement proceedings.
The Court noted that the treaty itself establishes mechanisms for Pakistani objections and the settlement of disputes between the parties.
Terrorism claim
The Court also considered India’s allegation that Pakistan’s alleged sponsorship of cross-border terrorism had impeded India’s use of rights under the treaty.
The Court said it took the allegation “extremely seriously.”
However, it found that even assuming India’s allegation to be true, it would not establish a material breach of the Indus Waters Treaty.
The Court noted that the treaty does not regulate terrorism or the use of force and expressly governs the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the use of the Indus River System’s waters.
It also found no evidence that the alleged terrorism had prevented India from constructing hydro-electric plants on the Western Rivers, noting that India has built and continues to build such projects.
Climate change, energy needs also examined
The Court also considered whether a “fundamental change of circumstances” could justify suspension or termination of the treaty.
India had referred to demographic changes, its need for clean energy, advances in dam technology, escalating cross-border terrorism and the effects of climate change.
The Court found that the necessary legal conditions for invoking a fundamental change of circumstances had not been met.
Among other reasons, it found that the changes cited were foreseeable when the treaty was concluded, were not an essential basis on which the two countries agreed to the treaty, or had not radically transformed the extent of India’s obligations.
The Court also examined whether armed conflict between India and Pakistan could justify suspension or termination.
It concluded that no international armed conflict between the two countries currently existed and that, in any event, the treaty was of a type that would remain operational during such a conflict.
The Court noted that the agreement had remained in force through multiple armed conflicts since 1960.
Court rejects suspension as countermeasure
The Court also examined whether India’s decision could be justified as a countermeasure in response to an alleged prior violation of international law by Pakistan.
It found that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.
In particular, the Court said suspension or termination would affect India’s obligations to protect fundamental human rights, would not permit the resumption of its treaty obligations and would prevent the treaty’s dispute-settlement mechanisms from operating.
“In light of the above, 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,” the Court said.
“Accordingly, the Court found that the Treaty has not been terminated or its operation suspended and rather remains fully in force.”
Ratle project faces interim restrictions
In a separate order, the Court also granted three interim measures requested by Pakistan concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
The measures were imposed pending a decision by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert on whether the design of the Ratle project complies with the treaty.
The Court unanimously prohibited India from concreting the Ratle dam wall above a specified level pending the Neutral Expert’s decision.
It imposed a similar restriction on concreting the project’s power intake structure.
The Court also ordered India to notify the Court, the Neutral Expert and Pakistan of any changes to the Ratle construction schedule.
The measures restricting concreting will remain in effect until 90 days after the Neutral Expert issues his final decision, which is expected around July 2027.
The Court said completing disputed construction before the Neutral Expert’s decision could prejudice the final resolution of the dispute because modifications, including the potential removal of reinforced concrete, could be “extraordinarily difficult and costly” if parts of the design were later found to be non-compliant.
The Court declined two additional measures sought by Pakistan, including a request to formally affirm that India was proceeding with construction at its “own risk.”
Pakistan welcomes PCA findings
Pakistan welcomed the Court’s findings, particularly its determination that interim measures were warranted and the restrictions imposed on construction at the Ratle project.
According to a statement issued by the Information Ministry, Pakistan will now give “careful consideration” to the details of the award and decision pending their publication.
The ministry said Pakistan would examine how the findings could help establish a pathway toward renewed engagement between the two countries under the treaty while ensuring that both sides meet their binding legal obligations.
The Court said the full Award on Treaty Status and Order on Interim Measures would be published on the PCA website after a process to identify confidential material requiring redaction.
‘Water is foundation of human dignity’
Pakistan has consistently maintained that the Indus Waters Treaty provides the appropriate framework for addressing differences over the shared river system.
Speaking in June at an international seminar on the treaty in Islamabad, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar described water as more than a natural resource, linking it directly to Pakistan’s economic and human security.
“Water is not merely a natural resource; it is the foundation of human dignity, economic prosperity, food security, and environmental sustainability,” Dar said.
He said the Indus waters had sustained communities and civilizations for thousands of years and stressed that Pakistan does not oppose India’s treaty-based use of the Western Rivers.
“We also do not object to India's treaty based use of the western rivers and seek to settle any differences or disputes within the framework provided in the Indus Waters Treaty itself,” Dar said.