Hague court says the Indus Waters Treaty is fully in force; India rejects the award
A tribunal says India cannot suspend the Indus treaty. India says the tribunal itself is illegal. Who is right?
Published 1 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
On 31 August 2026 the Court of Arbitration hearing Pakistan's case against India under the Indus Waters Treaty issued two decisions: an Award on Treaty Status and an Order on Interim Measures on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. The court, chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague as its secretariat, held unanimously that India's April 2025 decision to hold the treaty 'in abeyance' was not justified, since neither the treaty nor customary international law permits unilateral suspension. It examined the legal grounds that could justify suspension (material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, armed conflict and countermeasures) and found that none applied, and declared that the treaty 'remains fully in force'.
On Ratle, an 850 MW run-of-the-river project on the Chenab in Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir, the court granted three of the five measures Pakistan sought. India may not concrete the dam wall and the power intake above specified levels until 90 days after a Neutral Expert, who is examining the designs of Ratle and the Kishenganga project, gives a final decision, expected around July 2027. India must also report changes to its construction schedule. India did not respond to Pakistan's applications; the court said it considered India's public statements. Earlier awards covered the court's competence (6 July 2023), general interpretation (8 August 2025) and maximum pondage (15 May 2026).
The Ministry of External Affairs rejected the award the same day. It called the body an 'illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration' set up by the World Bank 'in patent breach of the terms of the Treaty', said India has never recognised it, and said that 'India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains in force'. India placed the treaty in abeyance on 23 April 2025, a day after the Pahalgam terror attack killed 26 people. India argues that running a Neutral Expert and a court on the same questions breaks the treaty's graded dispute process. Pakistan and the court treat the treaty as binding regardless of India's stand.
Prelims facts
- On 31 August 2026 the Court of Arbitration held unanimously that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force and India's April 2025 abeyance was not justified.
- The interim order bars India from concreting Ratle's dam wall and power intake above set levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert's decision, expected around July 2027.
- Ratle is an 850 MW run-of-the-river plant on the Chenab in Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir.
- India called the court 'illegally constituted', has never taken part in it, and says the abeyance remains in force.
- The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague acts as secretariat for the court; it is not itself the tribunal.
Quick recall
- When was the Indus Waters Treaty signed?
- 19 September 1960
- Which rivers are the Eastern Rivers?
- Ravi, Beas and Sutlej (allocated to India)
- Which rivers are the Western Rivers?
- Indus, Jhelum and Chenab (allocated to Pakistan, with limited Indian uses)
- Which article of the treaty sets out the dispute ladder?
- Article IX: Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, Court of Arbitration
- When did India hold the treaty in abeyance?
- 23 April 2025, a day after the Pahalgam attack
- What did the 31 August 2026 award hold?
- The treaty remains fully in force; unilateral suspension is not permitted
- Ratle project: capacity and river?
- 850 MW, run-of-the-river, on the Chenab in Kishtwar
- Who chairs the Court of Arbitration?
- Professor Sean D. Murphy
Prelims practice question
With reference to the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, consider the following statements:
1. The waters of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej are available for India's unrestricted use.
2. India may build run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, subject to design conditions.
3. The World Bank is a signatory to the treaty.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Show answer
Answer: (c) All three. All three are correct. The Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) are for India's unrestricted use. On the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) India may generate run-of-the-river hydropower within the design limits in the annexures. The World Bank signed the treaty for specified purposes and has a role in appointing Neutral Experts and Courts of Arbitration.
Asked before in UPSC
Recurring theme: The Indus river system and the India-Pakistan water treaty
Knowing how the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej join before meeting the Indus helps place the Eastern and Western Rivers and the Ratle and Kishenganga projects on the map.
The Chenab, fed by glaciers such as Bara Shigri, is the Western River on which the disputed Ratle project stands.
Mains practice question
India has held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance since April 2025 and rejected a Court of Arbitration's award that the treaty remains in force. Critically examine India's position and suggest a way forward. (250 words)
Model answer
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) divides the Indus basin: the Eastern Rivers go to India and the Western Rivers to Pakistan. India held it in abeyance on 23 April 2025 after the Pahalgam attack, and on 31 August 2026 a Court of Arbitration ruled the treaty remains fully in force.
Justification for India's position
- Terrorism and good faith: India links cooperation to Pakistan ending cross-border terrorism; the Pahalgam attack killed 26 people.
- Procedural objection: Article IX is a graded ladder, yet the World Bank started a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration together in 2022; India calls the court 'illegally constituted'.
- Changed needs: India had sought modification of the treaty in view of energy and water needs.
Concerns
- International law: the award says neither the treaty nor customary international law allows unilateral suspension; a legal record builds against India.
- Reputation: India argues for a rules-based order elsewhere; rejecting awards invites criticism.
- Riparian precedent: India is downstream of China on the Brahmaputra and may itself need respect for treaty norms.
- Untested arguments: by boycotting, India's legal case was not argued before the court.
Way forward
- Continue with the Neutral Expert process, which India itself sought, to settle design questions on Ratle and Kishenganga.
- Build infrastructure to use India's full share of the Eastern Rivers and permitted uses of Western Rivers.
- Pursue renegotiation through bilateral channels once terrorism concerns are addressed.
- Present India's legal reasoning clearly in international forums.
India's stand rests on security and procedure, but its long-term interest lies in keeping the legal argument alive while using its treaty rights fully.
The basics
Why this matters
The Indus Waters Treaty has governed how India and Pakistan share the six rivers of the Indus basin since 1960. It survived three wars. In April 2025 India placed it 'in abeyance' after the Pahalgam terror attack. On 31 August 2026 a Court of Arbitration ruled that India could not do this and that the treaty remains fully in force. India rejected the ruling. To follow the dispute you need to know what the treaty divides, how its dispute machinery works, and what the court is.
What the treaty divides
The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 splits the basin's rivers into two groups rather than splitting each river's water.
- Allocated to India
- Available for India's unrestricted use
- Allocated to Pakistan
- India may use them for domestic, non-consumptive and specified agricultural uses
- India may build run-of-the-river hydropower within design limits
How disputes are meant to be settled
Article IX of the treaty sets out a graded ladder. Technical 'questions' go to the Permanent Indus Commission, where each country has a commissioner. 'Differences' of a technical kind go to a Neutral Expert. Wider 'disputes' go to a Court of Arbitration. See Dispute resolution under Article IX.
- 1Permanent Indus CommissionThe two commissioners try to resolve a question between themselves
- 2Neutral ExpertA technical expert decides a 'difference', such as whether a dam design meets the treaty
- 3Court of ArbitrationA court can be set up to decide a legal 'dispute', such as one over interpretation
The trouble began when the two countries chose different rungs for the same objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects (Ratle and Kishenganga projects). Pakistan sought a court; India sought a Neutral Expert. In 2022 the World Bank set both processes in motion. India says this parallel track breaks the treaty and has never taken part in the court.
The story so far
- 19 September 1960India and Pakistan sign the treaty, with the World Bank also a signatory
- 6 July 2023Court of Arbitration rules that it has competence to hear Pakistan's case
- 23 April 2025India holds the treaty in abeyance, a day after the Pahalgam attack
- 8 August 2025Court issues an award on general interpretation of the treaty
- 15 May 2026Court issues an award on maximum pondage
- 31 August 2026Award on Treaty Status and interim order on Ratle; India rejects both
The court sits with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague as its secretariat, which is why the ruling is often reported as a 'PCA ruling'.
Go deeper
In one line: A Court of Arbitration ruled on 31 August 2026 that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force despite India's 2025 'abeyance' decision and restricted work on the Ratle dam; India called the court illegal and rejected the award.
Why it matters for UPSC
The treaty is a standard topic in GS2 (India and its neighbourhood, international agreements) and GS1 (river systems). Prelims asks about the rivers, their allocation and the dispute bodies. Mains asks whether treaties can be suspended and how India should balance water security, international law and pressure on Pakistan over terrorism.
The core idea
The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 divides six rivers between the two countries. Its Dispute resolution under Article IX provides a commission, a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration. Pakistan took its objections to India's hydropower designs, the Ratle and Kishenganga projects, to a court that works with the Permanent Court of Arbitration as secretariat. India has boycotted it. The new award says unilateral suspension is not allowed under the treaty or customary international law.
Numbers and dates to remember
- Treaty signed: 19 September 1960
- Pahalgam attack: 22 April 2025 (26 killed); treaty held in abeyance: 23 April 2025
- Award on Treaty Status and interim order on Ratle: 31 August 2026, unanimous
- Court chair: Professor Sean D. Murphy
- Ratle: 850 MW run-of-the-river plant on the Chenab, Kishtwar district, Jammu and Kashmir
- Interim bar lasts until 90 days after the Neutral Expert's decision, expected around July 2027
- Court granted three of the five interim measures Pakistan sought
Where to go next
- Indus Waters Treaty, 1960: what the treaty divides and permits
- Dispute resolution under Article IX: the ladder of commission, expert and court
- Permanent Court of Arbitration: the Hague body behind the headlines
- Ratle and Kishenganga projects: the dams at the centre of the case
Go deeper: can a treaty be held in abeyance?
The court's view. The award holds that neither the treaty nor customary international law allows one party to suspend or terminate it unilaterally. The court examined the legal grounds that could justify suspension (material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, armed conflict and countermeasures) and found that none applied. The treaty, the court says, 'remains fully in force', and India must meet all its obligations, including on hydropower design on the Western Rivers.
India's view. The Ministry of External Affairs calls the body an 'illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration', set up by the World Bank 'in patent breach of the terms of the Treaty'. India's objection is procedural as well as political: Dispute resolution under Article IX is a graded ladder, and India argues that running a Neutral Expert and a court on the same questions at once is not allowed. India has never appeared before the court and says its pronouncements 'will have no effect on India's actions'. Politically, India links the treaty to Pakistan ending support for cross-border terrorism.
What each side gains. For Pakistan, a series of awards builds a legal record it can use internationally. For India, non-participation avoids conceding the court's legitimacy, but it also means India's legal arguments were not tested before the court; the court says it considered India's public statements instead. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has no power of enforcement, so compliance depends on the parties.
The practical stakes. The interim order on Ratle (see Ratle and Kishenganga projects) limits concreting until after the Neutral Expert's decision, expected around July 2027. India says the order will not affect its projects. The Neutral Expert process, which India itself sought, continues in parallel, so its findings on design will matter for both sides.
Indus Waters Treaty, 1960
What the treaty divides and what India may build
In one line: The Indus Waters Treaty, signed on 19 September 1960 with the World Bank also a signatory, gives the Eastern Rivers to India and the Western Rivers to Pakistan.
What it says
The Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) are for India's unrestricted use. The Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) are for Pakistan, but India may use them for domestic needs, non-consumptive uses, specified agricultural use and hydroelectric generation. Hydropower on the Western Rivers must be run-of-the-river, meaning limited storage, and must meet design limits set out in the treaty's annexures, such as on pondage and gated spillways.
Why it is in the news
India placed the treaty in abeyance on 23 April 2025. On 31 August 2026 a Court of Arbitration held that it remains fully in force. India rejects that ruling.
Where to go next
Dispute resolution under Article IX
The ladder of commission, expert and court
In one line: Article IX of the treaty sends disagreements up a ladder: the Permanent Indus Commission, then a Neutral Expert for technical 'differences', then a Court of Arbitration for 'disputes'.
How the ladder works
Each country appoints a commissioner to the Permanent Indus Commission, which handles 'questions'. If they cannot agree, a technical 'difference' can go to a Neutral Expert, typically an engineer. A broader 'dispute', for example on interpretation, can go to a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank has a role in appointing these bodies.
Why it is in the news
On the Kishenganga and Ratle designs, Pakistan asked for a court and India for a Neutral Expert. The World Bank started both in 2022. India argues that running both on the same issues breaks the treaty and boycotts the court; it takes part in the Neutral Expert process.
Where to go next
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Hague body behind the headlines
In one line: The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organisation, set up in 1899 at the first Hague Peace Conference, that supports arbitration between states and other parties.
What it is and is not
Despite its name, the PCA is not a standing court with permanent judges. It provides a registry, meaning administrative and legal support, to tribunals that parties or treaties set up for a particular case. It is based at the Peace Palace in The Hague. India is one of its contracting parties.
Why it is in the news
The Court of Arbitration in the Indus case is a separate tribunal chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy. The PCA acts as its secretariat and issued the press release on the 31 August 2026 award, so media often call it a 'PCA ruling'. Like other arbitral bodies, it has no means to enforce its awards.
Where to go next
Ratle and Kishenganga projects
The dams at the centre of the case
In one line: Ratle (850 MW, on the Chenab in Kishtwar) and Kishenganga (330 MW, on the Kishanganga, a Jhelum tributary, in Bandipora) are Indian run-of-the-river projects in Jammu and Kashmir that Pakistan says breach the treaty's design limits.
The objections
Pakistan's concerns are about design features, such as how much water can be held back (pondage) and the position of spillway gates, which it says could let India alter the timing of flows. India says the designs are within the treaty.
Why it is in the news
The 31 August 2026 interim order bars India from concreting Ratle's dam wall and power intake above specified levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert decides, expected around July 2027, and requires India to report schedule changes. India says the court's pronouncements will not affect its projects.
Where to go next
Take the 1 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers