he Permanent Court of Arbitration has ordered India to respect the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan and suspend work on a hydroelectric project.

This is a vindication of Islamabad’s stance against the unilateral suspension of the treaty by India following its military humiliation in May 2025. The Hague-based court ruled that the IWT remains in force and that the Indian declaration of its suspension is unjustified.

In a major escalation of hostilities between the two countries, New Delhi had announced in 2025 that it was suspending the operation of the IWT. It had linked the action with its allegation that Pakistan was involved in an attack in Pahalgam, a tourist town in Indian-occupied Kashmir, in which 24 tourists lost their lives. However, New Delhi has failed to provide any evidence against Pakistan for the alleged involvement.

Following the Pahalgam attack, India also closed border crossings with Pakistan and for some time downgraded diplomatic ties. The hostility peaked after India attacked Pakistan in May 2025. However the military conflict was brief and ended in a humiliating defeat for India.

Water remains a key issue between the two archrivals, with Pakistan at the receiving end as the lower riparian.

The IWT is a water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan for use of water available in the Indus River system in the territories of the two countries. The treaty was signed in 1960. The World Bank was its guarantor and facilitator. Islamabad has been issuing warnings to New Delhi over Indian attempts to disrupt the flow of water by holding the IWT in abeyance.

The Court of Arbitration issued an award on the status of the IWT and an Order on Interim Measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant on August 21. “In a unanimous decision, the Court found that none of the grounds [cited by India] could justify suspension or termination of the Treaty. Accordingly, the IWT remains fully in force. 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 also 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 the neutral expert’s final decision, expected in July 2027.

The court also imposed a reporting requirement relating to the RHEP construction schedule until shortly after the neutral expert’s final decision. In the proceedings, 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 IWT to construct on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab Rivers and their tributaries — termed the Western Rivers — before those rivers flow into Pakistan.

The proceedings concerned the interpretation and application of the IWT as a general matter, as well as in the context of two specific Indian projects: the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. The KHEP and RHEP projects are also the subject of proceedings before a neutral expert, a highly qualified engineer appointed by the World Bank.

Pakistan had initiated arbitration proceedings regarding the western rivers in August 2016, the PCA press release recalled. However, in December 2016, 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. Following India’s suspension of the IWT in April 2025, the PCA considered its effect on the court’s competence in a Supplemental Award on Competence issued on June 27, 2025. 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, at that point, did not go further in determining whether the IWT remained in force.

The court ruled that 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 the associated dispute settlement mechanism.

In March 2025, Pakistan filed an application before the court to “determine the present status of the Treaty in light of India’s declaration on ‘abeyance.’” The PCA noted that India was invited to indicate whether it would participate in the proceedings but there was “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.

Welcoming the PCA interim order, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has noted that the court has ruled that 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 the associated dispute settlement mechanism.

Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has since reaffirmed Islamabad’s stance, saying water is the lifeblood of the region and urging that it must “never be weaponised.” Addressing a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Kyrgyzstan, he demanded that the IWT be respected.

“Water sustains millions of lives. It cannot be used as an instrument of coercion, nor can it ever be exploited for political leverage,” he said. He added that treaties governing shared waters are solemn, binding international commitments and are not a matter of political convenience to be cast aside at will.

On the other hand, the Indian government has rejected the ruling, stating that its decision to keep the treaty “in abeyance” remains in force. New Delhi has described the court as “so-called” and asserted that “it has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions.”

Legal experts say the arbitration court’s ruling fortifies Islamabad’s position on the IWT.

Dr Hassan Abbas, an Islamabad-based hydrology and water resources expert, has termed the arbitration court order a legal victory for Pakistan that sets the momentum for the future course of action to settle the dispute with India. He says India’s rejection of the PCA ruling will only harm its credibility with regard to international agreements and treaties. If India continues to reject the verdict for political purposes, it risks losing the confidence of the world, international organixations and global forums, he says.

“The PCA order is a significant legal development, consistent with the longstanding argument that the IWT contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance,” international law expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi says. He adds, “The decision is a setback for New Delhi and a defeat for its aggressive actions violating the treaty and sabotaging peace in the region.” He says the verdict has also highlighted the principle that such treaties cannot be linked to allegations of terrorism.

Pakistan can now call upon India to implement the award through the treaty’s legal and diplomatic framework. It can also seek international diplomatic support to persuade India to respect the PCA verdict.

According to the government of Pakistan, Islamabad will give careful consideration to the details of the award and decision, pending their publication, and to determine how these may best assist in finding a pathway back to the parties’ engagement under the IWT in a manner that reflects the binding legal obligations of both sides under the treaty.

“The PCA order will set the way forward for Pakistan, legally and diplomatically,” Dr Abbas says, suggesting that Pakistan should now approach the International Court of Justice instead of the Court of Arbitration on grounds of human security, climate and environment and the prevention of pollution. He says Pakistan should move the ICJ against India on charges of crimes against humanity, environmental pollution and failure to protect the climate. “We must fight to get the rivers back… and call for the restoration of the Indus delta,” he says.

The author is a staff reporter. He can be reached at [email protected].