India has flatly rejected a ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague directing it to uphold the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, declaring on Monday, August 31, that the tribunal has no authority over India’s sovereign decisions and that its suspension of the 1960 water-sharing agreement remains in effect.
What the Court Ruled
The PCA issued two determinations on Monday: an Award on the Status of the Indus Waters Treaty and an Order on Interim Measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant in Jammu and Kashmir. The unanimous ruling found that India’s April 2025 decision to place the treaty “in abeyance” does not carry legal weight to suspend or terminate the six-decade-old agreement. The tribunal rejected every justification New Delhi had cited, including arguments based on sovereignty and allegations that Pakistan had committed a material breach of the treaty.
The court held that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force and that India must continue observing its obligations, particularly around the design and operation of hydroelectric projects on the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. On the Ratle project specifically, the tribunal imposed limited interim restrictions on certain construction work, pending a final decision from a World Bank–appointed neutral expert expected around July 2027.
India’s Response
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) wasted no time in dismissing the ruling. In a statement, the ministry said the “so-called Court of Arbitration” was illegally constituted and has no jurisdiction over India’s sovereign decisions, adding that its rulings — past or future — will have no bearing on India’s actions regarding its hydroelectric projects.
India has consistently refused to recognize the tribunal’s legitimacy since it was first constituted by the World Bank at Pakistan’s request, arguing the process itself violates the treaty. New Delhi has never appeared before the body and has rejected each of its previous pronouncements, including an August 2025 award on treaty interpretation and a 2025 supplemental award on the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.
Background: Why the Treaty Was Suspended
India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the April 22, 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for backing the attack, an accusation Islamabad has denied. The fallout escalated into the most intense military confrontation between the two countries in decades before a ceasefire, brokered with US involvement, took hold in May 2025.
Since then, India has maintained that the treaty’s suspension is a sovereign response tied to Pakistan’s alleged support for cross-border terrorism, and that no international body has standing to compel it to reverse that decision.
Pakistan’s Position
Pakistan has welcomed the ruling as vindication. Islamabad has repeatedly expressed concern that Indian run-of-river hydroelectric projects on the western rivers could reduce downstream water flows and damage its agricultural sector, which is heavily dependent on the Indus system. Following an earlier August 2025 award from the same tribunal, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry called it an endorsement of its long-standing position and urged India to resume normal treaty operations — a call India rejected at the time, just as it has now.
What Happens Next
Despite the ruling, there is no clear enforcement mechanism to compel India’s compliance, and New Delhi’s rejection means the treaty will likely remain suspended in practice regardless of the tribunal’s findings. The dispute over the Ratle and Kishenganga hydroelectric projects will continue to be examined by the World Bank–appointed neutral expert, with a final determination expected by mid-2027.
The standoff underscores a deeper and long-running disagreement between the two countries: Pakistan has pursued arbitration through the Permanent Court of Arbitration, while India insists the treaty’s dispute-resolution framework requires disagreements to go through a neutral expert first, arguing the simultaneous arbitration process itself breaches the treaty’s terms. That procedural dispute, layered on top of the political fallout from the Pahalgam attack, leaves the decades-old water-sharing arrangement in an unresolved and increasingly contentious state.
