India Rejects Hague Ruling on Indus Waters Treaty as Pakistan Calls for Its Restoration

A June 27 ruling deepens the water dispute

A supplemental award issued in The Hague on June 27, 2025, has brought the Indus Waters Treaty into sharper conflict between India and Pakistan. The ruling says India cannot unilaterally place the agreement in abeyance, or suspend its operation, and that the court retains authority to hear the dispute. Pakistan has welcomed the decision. India has rejected both the award and the legitimacy of the arbitral body that issued it.

The confrontation follows the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, which killed 26 people. India blamed Pakistan for supporting cross-border terrorism and announced that it would put the treaty in abeyance. Islamabad denies the accusation and calls the water decision illegal.

As of June 30, the two nuclear-armed neighbours remain divided over both the treaty's operation and the legal process for resolving their disagreements. Pakistan wants normal treaty arrangements restored immediately. India maintains that its response to terrorism is a matter of sovereignty and international law.

The dispute also concerns the design of India's Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan argues that the projects violate treaty requirements governing India's use of rivers allocated mainly to Pakistan. The June award addresses the court's jurisdiction and the attempted suspension, while the next phase of arbitration is intended to examine the substance of those objections.

What the 1960 agreement provides

India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 after nine years of negotiations brokered by the World Bank. The agreement divides the use of six rivers in the Indus Basin and sets rules for managing disagreements over their waters.

• The eastern rivers, the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, are allocated to India for unrestricted use.
• The western rivers, the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, are allocated to Pakistan, with India allowed limited uses, including non-consumptive purposes such as hydropower.

Hydropower generates electricity from moving water. In this context, non-consumptive use means using the water's energy rather than taking it away for consumption. The treaty nevertheless places conditions on projects, making their design a central part of the current disagreement.

The agreement also contains provisions for sharing data, constructing dams and resolving disputes. Its procedures provide for a neutral expert and, where necessary, a Court of Arbitration. Those arrangements give the countries a way to address technical and legal disagreements even when their wider relationship is strained.

For more than six decades, the treaty survived wars and political crises. It became a durable water agreement and a rare continuing channel of dialogue between India and Pakistan. The present confrontation challenges both functions: the rules governing water use and the process intended to settle disputes about those rules.

How the confrontation developed

The April 22 attack in Pahalgam turned an existing disagreement over hydroelectric projects into a broader confrontation over whether the treaty would continue operating. India said its suspension would remain in place until Pakistan "credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism." Pakistan rejects India's allegation that it supports such terrorism.

India's announcement was the first attempt by either country in the treaty's history to suspend or unilaterally alter its operation. Pakistan described the move as an "act of war" and a violation of international law. It cited the absence of a treaty provision allowing unilateral suspension and threatened legal action under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The main dates and stages are:

• 1960: India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty after nine years of negotiations brokered by the World Bank.
• 2022: The World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration for the dispute over the hydroelectric projects, creating parallel proceedings.
• April 22, 2025: The Pahalgam attack killed 26 people. India subsequently announced that it would place the treaty in abeyance.
• June 27, 2025: The supplemental award affirmed the court's jurisdiction and rejected unilateral abeyance or suspension under the treaty.
• June 30, 2025: India continued to reject the award, while Pakistan called for normal treaty operations to resume.

What the court decided

Pakistan formally pursued arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, challenging India's actions and seeking clarification of the court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the legal authority to hear a dispute and make a decision.

The June 27 supplemental award addressed two central questions: whether the court could continue hearing the case despite India's suspension announcement, and whether India could unilaterally suspend the treaty or hold it in abeyance.

The court ruled unanimously that the treaty remains valid and operational and that India's unilateral decision has no legal effect. It found that the agreement contains no provision for unilateral suspension or abeyance and continues in force until India and Pakistan mutually agree to terminate it.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration's press release explained the treaty provisions underlying that conclusion:

The Court first considered the terms of the Treaty (IWT), which do not provide for the unilateral 'abeyance' or 'suspension' of the Treaty; rather, according to its terms, the Treaty continues in force until terminated with the mutual consent of India and Pakistan.

The court also found that allowing unilateral suspension would undermine the treaty's compulsory process for settling disputes through a third party. Its authority to hear the case, it said, remains intact regardless of how India describes its actions under international law.

Why India rejects the award

India's Ministry of External Affairs has categorically rejected the supplemental award and the existence in law of what it calls the so-called Court of Arbitration. The ministry argues that the body's constitution is itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and considers its proceedings and awards illegal and void.

India's objection reaches beyond the June decision. It maintains that the dispute belongs before the treaty's neutral expert mechanism, rather than an arbitration court. From India's perspective, Pakistan's move to arbitration and the resulting court proceedings violate the agreement's procedures.

The ministry also argues that India, as a sovereign nation, has a right under international law to suspend treaty obligations in response to acts of terrorism. It described the proceedings as a "charade at Pakistan's behest" and accused Islamabad of using international forums to avoid accountability for terrorism.

India's position therefore combines two arguments: that this court lacks legitimate authority, and that the circumstances following the Pahalgam attack justify suspending its treaty obligations. The court's award rejects the effect of that suspension on the treaty and on its own jurisdiction, while India continues to reject the court's authority to decide those issues.

Pakistan seeks an immediate return to normal operations

Pakistan's Foreign Office welcomed the award as a legal and diplomatic victory. It said the decision "vindicates Pakistan's position that the Indus Waters Treaty remains valid and operational, and that India has no right to take unilateral action about it."

Ishaq Dar, Pakistan's deputy prime minister and foreign minister, linked the ruling to the responsibility of states to uphold their international agreements:

The ruling confirms that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully valid. India cannot unilaterally hold it in 'abeyance'. States are measured by their adherence to international agreements. The IWT must be upheld in both letter & spirit.

Pakistan has called on India to restore the treaty's normal functioning immediately and fulfil its obligations. Its response places the continued operation of the agreement at the centre of the diplomatic dispute, rather than treating the award solely as a decision about which forum can hear the case.

Islamabad has also reiterated its readiness for meaningful dialogue on all outstanding issues. Its stated agenda includes water, trade, terrorism and the status of Jammu and Kashmir. That offer connects the water dispute to the wider relationship, even as the arbitration continues through the treaty's legal machinery.

The two hydroelectric projects at the centre of the case

The Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project is built on a tributary of the Jhelum River. Pakistan objects to its design because it fears reduced water flow into its territory. The Ratle Hydroelectric Project is on the Chenab River, where Pakistan has raised similar concerns about water diversion and storage capacity.

Both disputes concern India's permitted use of western rivers. Pakistan argues that the designs violate the treaty's terms. India relies on the treaty's neutral expert procedure to address the disagreement.

Pakistan initially sought resolution through that expert process, then requested full arbitration because it considered the issues too complex for a technical expert alone. India insists on the neutral expert route and views Pakistan's shift to arbitration as a breach of the agreement.

The design questions matter because a hydroelectric project can affect how water moves through a river. In this case, the disputed issues are the flow reaching Pakistan, diversion and the amount of water that can be stored. Those practical concerns sit alongside the legal argument about which treaty procedure should decide them.

Why parallel proceedings complicate the dispute

The World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration in 2022. That created parallel proceedings over the hydroelectric dispute and added a further disagreement about the proper route to a decision.

A neutral expert process centres on technical questions. Arbitration provides a forum for deciding legal disputes under the treaty. India and Pakistan disagree over where their particular objections belong, so the choice of procedure has itself become part of the conflict.

The June supplemental award keeps the arbitration process moving by confirming the court's jurisdiction despite India's suspension announcement. India's continued rejection means that the legal proceedings and the diplomatic dispute are moving along different tracks: the court claims authority to proceed, while India refuses to recognise that authority.

The next arbitration phase is intended to address the merits of Pakistan's objections to Kishenganga and Ratle. Here, merits means the substance of the case: whether the challenged project designs comply with the treaty's requirements.

The treaty and international law

Pakistan has invoked the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which governs the creation, interpretation and termination of international agreements. Its argument is that a country cannot simply stop applying an agreement when the agreement contains no provision allowing that action.

Under the convention framework cited by Pakistan, unilateral suspension or termination requires a legal basis, such as a provision in the treaty or a material breach. A material breach means a serious violation of the agreement. India, meanwhile, argues that international law permits its response to terrorism.

The court's reasoning centres on the Indus Waters Treaty's own terms: it contains no unilateral abeyance or suspension provision and continues until termination by mutual consent. The award reinforces the requirement for agreement between the two countries when altering or ending the treaty.

The compulsory dispute process is another part of that reasoning. If one party could suspend the treaty and thereby remove the court's authority during a dispute, the mechanism designed to resolve disagreements would lose its practical force precisely when the countries needed it.

Water, livelihoods and regional security

Pakistan depends on the Indus Basin for agriculture and its economy. India relies on its rivers for hydropower and irrigation in its northern states. Changes to cooperation over these waters therefore reach beyond government statements and court proceedings to food production, electricity and livelihoods.

Both countries depend heavily on the basin for food security, energy and daily economic activity. Disruption to the treaty could carry humanitarian, economic and security consequences, particularly if the dispute makes water management less predictable.

Climate change adds pressure through changes in river flows, glacier melt and rainfall patterns. Those changes increase the risk of water scarcity and conflict in a region already facing population growth and deep political rivalry.

The possibility of a "water war" carries potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people. The treaty's dispute mechanisms have historically helped prevent disagreements over rivers from escalating into open conflict. The present standoff tests whether those mechanisms can continue serving that role when one country rejects the court and suspends the agreement's operation.

What happens after the ruling

The supplemental award is binding, but compliance depends on the willingness of India and Pakistan to act on it. India's rejection leaves a gap between the court's legal decision and the restoration of normal treaty arrangements.

Pakistan hopes the ruling will support a return to meaningful dialogue. India continues to challenge the court's legitimacy and to favour the neutral expert process. Those positions keep the dispute over legal procedure closely tied to the broader tensions following the Pahalgam attack.

A hearing in The Hague is scheduled for the next phase concerning Pakistan's objections to the hydroelectric projects, but no hearing date was given. The outcome could set precedents for interpreting the treaty and for international water law.

The immediate issue is whether the treaty's normal operation resumes while those technical and legal questions are examined. The court has affirmed that the agreement remains in force. India and Pakistan still disagree over the authority of the process and the obligations that follow from it.

Key Points

• The June 27, 2025, supplemental award rejected India's unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and affirmed the court's jurisdiction.
• The treaty was signed in 1960 after nine years of negotiations brokered by the World Bank and divides the use of six rivers.
• India announced abeyance after the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 people. Pakistan denies India's accusation of supporting terrorism.
• India rejects the court and its award, arguing that the dispute belongs before a neutral expert and that international law permits its response to terrorism.
• Pakistan welcomed the ruling, demanded normal treaty operations resume and offered dialogue on water and other outstanding issues.
• The arbitration also concerns the designs of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. A further hearing is scheduled, with no date given.
• Water cooperation affects agriculture, electricity, livelihoods and regional security as climate change places additional pressure on the Indus Basin.