Water and the IWT remain a contentious issue between India and Pakistan, following New Delhi’s unilateral abeyance of the accord in April last year — a move that was followed by a brief military conflict between the two sides in May 2025.
Following India’s move, Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”, noting the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. It later argued that Delhi’s action was a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
In its order, the PCA backed Pakistan’s stance, declaring that the IWT between the two countries remained fully in force, as India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.
The Hague-based 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.
In a press release detailing 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”.
The IWT allocates the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — to India, while the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — are largely allocated to Pakistan. The 1960 water-sharing agreement has also established mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution.
During the proceedings, Pakistan requested the court to address the “design of certain components of the run-of-river hydro-electric projects that India is permitted by the IWT to construct on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries (“western rivers”), before those rivers flow into Pakistan”, the PCA statement said.
The proceedings in the interim measures’ application concerned India’s Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP).
The court noted that the Kishenganga and Ratle plants were “also the subject of proceedings” before a World Bank-appointed neutral expert, who is expected to issue a final decision in July 2027 on whether they were in line with the IWT.
In its order, the PCA 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”.
The court also imposed a reporting measure related to the RHEP Construction Schedule until shortly after the neutral expert’s final decision. It declined to grant two other measures requested by Pakistan.
The PCA noted that the IWT “does not provide for one party to terminate or suspend the operation of the treaty, or for ‘abeyance’”. The IWT provides that it will remain in force unless modified or terminated by India and Pakistan acting together through adoption of a further treaty.
The Court of Arbitration was chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States. The other members were Professor Wouter Buytaert of Belgium, Professor Jeffrey P. Minear of the United States, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of Jordan, and Dr Donald Blackmore of Australia.
Islamabad “took note” of the press release and welcomed the PCA’s finding that India “remains bound by and must observe its obligations under” the IWT, the information ministry said.
It also welcomed the finding regarding the Ratle plant, as well as the measures ordered by the court.
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 statement added.
India, which is officially a member of the intergovernmental court, said it did not recognise the court and “categorically” rejected the verdict.
“This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions,” India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
While India did not participate by making written or oral submissions in response to Pakistan’s application, the PCA sought to consider India’s positions on the matters “to the extent they could be discerned from India’s statements and conduct outside of these proceedings (including Indian government communications to Pakistan and to the neutral expert, and public statements made by Indian officials)”.
The PCA examined possible grounds for India’s action outside the treaty — ie under customary international law rules — but found that “there is no rule allowing a state to unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty based on its ‘sovereignty’”, as argued by India.
The court considered several potential arguments based on India’s statements, but found that they did not justify New Delhi’s actions to suspend the IWT.
It identified three of the “few, highly restricted grounds” upon which a state could unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty: material breach of the pact by a party, fundamental change of circumstances, and effect of armed conflict.
On India’s claim that Pakistan had violated the IWT’s “cooperative spirit” by failing to enter into negotiations to modify the treaty, the court found that “no provision of the treaty obliged Pakistan to enter into such” discussions and therefore, this cannot be a material breach of the IWT.
In fact, after examining the correspondence between the two governments, the court said it “found that Pakistan had been willing to discuss with India the issue of treaty modifications”.
On India’s allegations of cross-border terrorism, which New Delhi had cited while unilaterally suspending the IWT last year, the PCA observed that the treaty “does not address terrorism or the use of force and expressly indicates that it governs only” the rights and obligations regarding the Indus waters.
The court said it “did not find evidence that the alleged terrorism had impeded India’s ability to construct its HEPs on the western rivers and instead noted that India has built and is building many such HEPs, including in recent years”.
“Even if India’s allegation was assumed to be true, they would not establish a material breach of the treaty by Pakistan,” it said.
Regarding possible fundamental change of circumstances, the court considered India’s arguments of “(1) demographic changes; (2) the need for clean energy in India; (3) changes in dam infrastructure technology; (4) escalating cross-border terrorist attacks; and (5) the effects of climate change”.
However, in each instance, the court found that the “necessary conditions for invoking a ‘fundamental change of circumstances’ under the law of treaties had not been met”.
The court pointed out that the IWT “was of a type that would remain operational” even during an armed conflict, adding that such a conflict did not exist at present.
Furthermore, the PCA also considered whether India’s conduct could be justified “as a ‘countermeasure’ against an antecedent violation of international law by Pakistan”, but found that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.
The court ruled that a “termination or suspension of the operation of the treaty would affect India’s obligations to protect fundamental human rights, would not permit the resumption of India’s obligations under the treaty, and would preclude the operation of dispute settlement provisions under the treaty”.
Pakistan had initiated the arbitration proceedings regarding the western rivers in August 2016, the PCA press release recalled.
However, in December that year, the World Bank decided to “pause” the process of appointing the chairman of the Court of Arbitration and the neutral expert. This pause was lifted in 2022, following which a neutral expert was appointed.
After India unilaterally held the IWT in abeyance in April 2025, the PCA considered its effect on the court’s competence in a “Supplemental Award on Competence” issued on June 27 that year.
The court held that “India’s decision on the ‘abeyance’ of the treaty cannot limit the competence of the Court over this dispute”. “However, the court did not go further in determining whether the Indus Waters Treaty remained in force,” it added.
On March 4, Pakistan filed an application before the court to “determine the present status of the Treaty in light of India’s decision on ‘abeyance’”.
The PCA noted that India was invited to indicate whether it would participate in the proceedings but received “no response”. The court then directed Pakistan to “file a written memorial further detailing its application and held a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague” from April 26 to 28.