In a significant development in the long-standing water dispute between Pakistan and India, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), headquartered in The Hague, has reaffirmed its jurisdiction over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) arbitration case. The decision, issued on June 27, 2025, under the title “Supplemental Award on Competence”, rejects India’s contention that the court lacks authority in this matter and marks a pivotal moment in the evolving dynamics of transboundary water sharing in South Asia.
Background: The Indus Waters Treaty
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is one of the most comprehensive water-sharing agreements globally. Under the treaty, the three western rivers of the Indus system—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—were allocated primarily to Pakistan, while the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—were given to India. Despite multiple wars and diplomatic breakdowns between the two countries, the treaty has largely remained intact for over six decades.
However, recent infrastructure developments by India—particularly the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir—have raised alarms in Pakistan. Islamabad argues that these projects violate the treaty’s technical specifications and compromise its water rights. In response, Pakistan sought international arbitration through the PCA.
India’s Objection and “Unilateral Abeyance” Claim
India, on the other hand, has persistently challenged the legitimacy of the arbitration proceedings. It claims that Pakistan violated the treaty’s dispute resolution process by pursuing arbitration instead of resolving the matter through bilateral means or the neutral expert mechanism, which is also provided under the treaty.
More controversially, India has declared that the Indus Waters Treaty should be considered in “unilateral abeyance,” a legal stance that effectively seeks to suspend the functioning of the treaty—at least from India’s side. New Delhi has argued that the PCA lacks jurisdiction because the matter should first be addressed by a neutral expert rather than an arbitral tribunal.
PCA’s Ruling: Jurisdiction Confirmed
The PCA, however, has unequivocally dismissed India’s claim of “unilateral abeyance,” stating that the treaty does not contain any provision that allows either party to suspend or withhold its obligations unilaterally. In its ruling, the court emphasized that its jurisdiction over the matter is valid and that the process was initiated in accordance with the treaty’s provisions.
The decision paves the way for the court to proceed with substantive hearings regarding Pakistan’s concerns over the design and construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle projects. The court’s reaffirmation of competence ensures that Pakistan’s grievances will now be examined in detail, particularly regarding water flow regulations, dam design, and potential environmental and agricultural impacts downstream.
Pakistan Welcomes Decision
The government of Pakistan has welcomed the PCA’s ruling, viewing it as a diplomatic and legal vindication of its stance. Officials in Islamabad reiterated that the court’s jurisdiction was never in doubt and praised the tribunal for upholding international legal norms. They also emphasized that the ruling strengthens global confidence in the IWT as a reliable framework for resolving transboundary water disputes.
For Pakistan, this ruling is crucial. The Indus river system is the country’s lifeline—a key source of agriculture, drinking water, and hydroelectric power. Any changes upstream by India are seen as existential threats, especially considering Pakistan’s growing water scarcity challenges.
India Dismisses the Ruling
India, however, has dismissed the PCA’s decision, calling the arbitration process a “charade” orchestrated at Pakistan’s behest. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs reiterated its stance that the PCA proceedings are illegal and non-binding. According to New Delhi, Pakistan’s decision to bypass the neutral expert route violated the treaty’s tiered dispute resolution mechanism.
Indian officials maintain that they will not recognize any ruling issued by this tribunal, and they intend to continue construction on the disputed hydroelectric projects. This defiant posture raises concerns about further escalation and a potential breakdown in treaty implementation.
What’s Next?
The PCA is expected to commence substantive hearings in the coming months. These will focus on the technical aspects of the Kishanganga and Ratle projects and whether their design features violate the IWT’s provisions. Environmental impact assessments, minimum flow guarantees, and sediment control mechanisms will likely be scrutinized.
In parallel, diplomatic efforts are expected to continue. The World Bank, which serves as a facilitator under the treaty, has maintained a neutral stance but may once again be called upon to help mediate the dispute.
Broader Implications
This case could set a precedent for how water-sharing disputes are handled in a time of increasing climate stress and geopolitical rivalry. The PCA’s decision reinforces the role of international law in managing resource disputes and affirms that treaties cannot be paused or ignored based on unilateral political will.
For South Asia—a region where over a billion people depend on shared water systems—this case underscores the critical need for cooperation, transparency, and a rules-based order in resource management.
Reference: سندھ طاس معاہدے پر دائرہ اختیار برقرار ہے:ثالثی کی عالمی عدالت کا فیصلہ
