India Rejects Court of Arbitration’s Supplemental Award on Indus Waters Treaty

New Delhi: India has firmly rejected a “supplemental award” issued by the Court of Arbitration (CoA) based in The Hague, concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) declared the award, along with all prior pronouncements by this arbitral body, as illegal and void, citing its formation as a serious violation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. This development follows India’s decision to place the treaty “in abeyance” after the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, until Pakistan ceases its support for cross-border terrorism.

Background of the Indus Waters Treaty

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan and brokered by the World Bank, is a landmark agreement governing the use of the Indus River system. The treaty allocates water resources as follows:

• India: Granted unrestricted use of the Eastern rivers, namely the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi.
• Pakistan: Given rights over the Western rivers, including the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.

The treaty established mechanisms to resolve disputes, including the Permanent Indus Commission, which is required to meet annually to address implementation issues, a Neutral Expert to handle unresolved differences on water-sharing, and a Court of Arbitration, a seven-member arbitral tribunal to adjudicate disputes.

The current conflict centers on India’s Kishanganga hydroelectric project on a tributary of the Jhelum River and the Ratle hydroelectric project on the Chenab River. These projects have been contentious since Pakistan raised objections to their design features in 2015.

Timeline of the Dispute

The dispute over the Kishenganga and Ratle projects has a complex history:

• 2015: Pakistan objected to specific design elements of the Kishenganga and Ratle projects, requesting the appointment of a neutral expert through the World Bank.
• 2016: Pakistan withdrew its request for a neutral expert and instead demanded the establishment of a Court of Arbitration. India, in contrast, filed a separate request for the matter to be referred to a Neutral Expert, highlighting a divergence in preferred dispute resolution mechanisms.
• 2022: The World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration to address the issue, a move that India partially accepted by participating in the neutral expert process but rejecting the CoA’s legitimacy.
• April 22, 2025: A terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, prompted India to take punitive measures against Pakistan, including declaring the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” until Pakistan ends its support for cross-border terrorism.
• June 27, 2025: The Court of Arbitration issued a “supplemental award” asserting its jurisdiction over the Kishenganga and Ratle disputes, ruling that India’s suspension of the treaty does not affect its authority.
• June 28, 2025: India’s MEA categorically rejected the CoA’s supplemental award, labeling the tribunal as “illegally constituted” and its decisions “illegal and per se void.”
• June 30, 2025: Pakistan’s Foreign Office urged India to resume normal functioning of the IWT, citing the CoA’s ruling as evidence of the treaty’s continued validity. Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, echoed this sentiment in a post on X, stating, “The IWT must be upheld in both letter & spirit.”

India’s Rejection of the Supplemental Award

India’s rejection of the CoA’s supplemental award is rooted in several key arguments:

1. Illegality of the Court of Arbitration: The MEA described the CoA as “illegally constituted” in “brazen violation” of the Indus Waters Treaty. India has consistently maintained that Pakistan’s unilateral approach to the World Bank in 2016 to establish the CoA was a breach of the treaty’s provisions. The MEA stated, “India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India’s position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty.”
2. Sovereign Right to Suspend the Treaty: Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India exercised its “rights as a sovereign nation under international law” to place the IWT in abeyance. The MEA emphasized that, during this period, India is not obligated to comply with the treaty’s provisions, rendering the CoA’s proceedings and decisions without jurisdiction or legal standing. The ministry stated, “Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty.”
3. Pakistan’s Alleged Role in Terrorism: India condemned the arbitration process as a “charade at Pakistan’s behest” and accused Pakistan of using the CoA as a maneuver to evade accountability for its role as a “global hub of terrorism.” The MEA described Pakistan’s pursuit of the arbitration as part of a “long-standing pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums.”

Pakistan’s Response and Position

Pakistan, on the other hand, has welcomed the CoA’s supplemental award, viewing it as a vindication of its position that the IWT remains “valid and operational.” Pakistan’s Foreign Office issued a statement on June 30, 2025, urging India to “immediately resume the normal functioning of the Indus Waters Treaty, and fulfil its treaty obligations, wholly and faithfully.” Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar reinforced this stance, asserting that the CoA’s ruling confirms the treaty’s validity and that India cannot unilaterally hold it in abeyance. Dar’s post on X emphasized, “States are measured by their adherence to international agreements.”

Pakistan’s objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects focus on specific design elements, with three issues raised for Kishenganga and four for Ratle. These concerns were initially discussed bilaterally until 2015, after which Pakistan escalated the matter to the World Bank.

Implications of the Dispute

The ongoing dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty has significant implications for India-Pakistan relations and regional stability:

• Bilateral Relations: The rejection of the CoA’s award and India’s suspension of the IWT underscore the deep mistrust between the two nations, exacerbated by the Pahalgam terror attack. India’s linkage of the treaty’s status to Pakistan’s cessation of cross-border terrorism adds a political dimension to what was initially a technical dispute over water-sharing.
• Water Security: The Indus River system is critical for both countries, particularly Pakistan, which relies heavily on the Western rivers for agriculture and economic stability. India’s unrestricted use of the Eastern rivers and its hydroelectric projects on the Western rivers’ tributaries have long been a point of contention, raising concerns about water security in Pakistan.
• International Law and Arbitration: The dispute highlights the challenges of enforcing international agreements when one party questions the legitimacy of the dispute resolution mechanism. India’s rejection of the CoA’s authority raises questions about the efficacy of the World Bank’s role as a mediator and the broader framework of international arbitration.
• Regional Stability: The Indus Waters Treaty has historically been a rare example of successful cooperation between India and Pakistan, surviving multiple conflicts. India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance could set a precedent for unilateral actions, potentially destabilizing other bilateral agreements.

Conclusion

India’s rejection of the Court of Arbitration’s supplemental award on the Indus Waters Treaty marks a significant escalation in the ongoing dispute over the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. By declaring the CoA “illegally constituted” and placing the treaty in abeyance, India has underscored its sovereign rights and linked the treaty’s implementation to Pakistan’s actions on cross-border terrorism. Pakistan, in contrast, views the CoA’s ruling as a validation of the treaty’s continued relevance and has called for its restoration. The dispute reflects deep-seated tensions between the two nations and raises critical questions about water security, international law, and regional stability. As the situation evolves, the international community, particularly the World Bank, will play a pivotal role in navigating this complex and sensitive issue.

FAQs