India has firmly rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration's (PCA) ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty, asserting that it does not recognize the court's jurisdiction, particularly concerning the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. This stance follows the PCA's August 8, 2025, award, which clarified that India must strictly adhere to the treaty's provisions regarding the design and operation of hydropower projects, rather than imposing unilateral standards.
The core of the dispute lies in Pakistan's challenge to India's construction of run-of-river hydropower plants on the western rivers, specifically the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, alleging that these projects reduce water flow downstream. Pakistan argues that these actions violate the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) provisions. The PCA sided with Pakistan, stating that the exceptions for hydropower generation are limited and must not infringe upon Pakistan's water rights.
India's rejection is rooted in its view that Pakistan unilaterally initiated the arbitration process, thereby violating the treaty's dispute resolution mechanism and undermining bilateral dialogue. Furthermore, following the April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, India placed the treaty in abeyance, citing serious security concerns linked to cross-border terrorism. India insists that resuming treaty obligations is contingent upon Pakistan decisively addressing terrorism support and adhering to established dispute mechanisms.
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has historically been regarded as a resilient example of cooperation between India and Pakistan. The treaty divides control of six rivers, granting India rights over the eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi) and Pakistan rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab), with limited non-consumptive uses allowed for each side.
However, tensions have escalated, especially after the April 2025 terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, leading India to suspend the treaty and halt water releases from the western rivers. Pakistan condemned the suspension as a violation of international law, even threatening to consider any attempt to block its water supply as an act of war, resulting in military skirmishes along the border and heightened fears of a wider conflict.
India has consistently favored the Neutral Expert route for resolving disputes, while Pakistan has pushed for the arbitration court, especially on issues like the design of hydropower projects. India maintains that parallel proceedings before both mechanisms violate the treaty’s structure and purpose. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has stated that the constitution of the Court of Arbitration violates the IWT provisions, rendering any decisions or awards issued by it "per se void".
Despite India's objections and its decision to hold the IWT in abeyance, the PCA reaffirmed its jurisdiction, asserting that India's decision does not limit its competence over the dispute. The court unanimously determined that it was properly constituted and competent to resolve the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s request for arbitration. The PCA also emphasized that the treaty does not provide for the unilateral suspension.
Following the PCA ruling, Pakistan's Foreign Office called on India to "immediately resume" the normal functioning of the Indus Waters Treaty and to comply fully with the arbitration award. Islamabad reaffirmed its commitment to the treaty and stressed the importance of bilateral cooperation to ensure water security.
