Citing lack of jurisdiction, India rejects Hague court’s Indus Waters Treaty ruling

International Relations · 1 September 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

India has categorically rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague regarding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), declaring the court "illegally-constituted" and lacking jurisdiction over India's sovereign decisions. The dispute centers on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP) and Kishenganga projects. While India sought a Neutral Expert to resolve technical differences, Pakistan bypassed this to demand a Court of Arbitration (CoA). The World Bank's concurrent activation of both mechanisms led to India's boycott of the CoA. Furthermore, India had placed the IWT "in abeyance" following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025. The PCA's recent ruling declared that the treaty remains fully in force, rejected India's grounds for suspension, and issued interim measures halting certain construction at the Ratle project until 90 days after the Neutral Expert's decision (expected July 2027). India has refused to recognize this award, maintaining its suspension of the treaty until Pakistan stops sponsoring cross-border terrorism.

Why it's in the news

India has rejected the Hague-based Court of Arbitration's ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty, asserting that the tribunal is illegally constituted by the World Bank in breach of the treaty and has no jurisdiction over India's sovereign decisions.

Facts to remember

• The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan.
• The Permanent Court of Arbitration is located at The Hague, Netherlands, and was established in 1899.
• The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the three Eastern Rivers to India and the three Western Rivers to Pakistan.
• Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty outlines a graded three-step dispute resolution mechanism.

Background and context

Signed in 1960 by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, and brokered by the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) governs the distribution of the Indus River system. It allocates the three Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India for unrestricted use, and the three Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan. India is permitted to construct run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, subject to specific design criteria. Article IX of the treaty outlines a graded three-step dispute resolution mechanism: (1) bilateral resolution via the Permanent Indus Commission, (2) referral of technical differences to a Neutral Expert, and (3) a Court of Arbitration for legal disputes. The current conflict arose when Pakistan objected to India's Kishanganga and Ratle projects. Pakistan demanded a Court of Arbitration, while India insisted on a Neutral Expert. The World Bank's decision to initiate both processes concurrently prompted India to boycott the Court of Arbitration, arguing it violates the treaty's sequential dispute resolution framework.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 253 — Empowers Parliament to make laws for implementing any treaty, agreement, or convention with other countries.
• Article 51(c) — A Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) that directs the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.

Committees and reports

• Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources (12th Report) — Recommended renegotiating the Indus Waters Treaty to address climate change, environmental degradation, and water scarcity, which were not factored into the 1960 agreement.

International organisations

• Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) — An intergovernmental organization established in 1899, located at The Hague, Netherlands, which facilitates arbitration and dispute resolution between states.
• World Bank — A signatory to the Indus Waters Treaty, responsible for appointing the Neutral Expert and facilitating the constitution of the Court of Arbitration under Article IX.

Mains practice: Analyze the structural challenges in the dispute resolution mechanism of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in light of the recent conflict over parallel proceedings (Neutral Expert vs. Court of Arbitration).

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, is widely regarded as one of the world's most resilient transboundary water sharing agreements. However, the recent deadlock over India's Kishenganga and Ratle Hydro-Electric Projects has exposed deep structural vulnerabilities in its dispute resolution framework.

**Structural Challenges in the Dispute Resolution Mechanism:**

• **Lack of Sequential Clarity:** Article IX of the IWT outlines a graded mechanism: the Permanent Indus Commission, followed by a Neutral Expert (for technical differences), and finally a Court of Arbitration (for legal disputes). However, the treaty does not explicitly state that these steps must be strictly sequential, allowing Pakistan to bypass the Neutral Expert stage and directly demand a Court of Arbitration.

• **The World Bank's Dual-Track Precedent:** By concurrently appointing a Neutral Expert (at India's request) and facilitating a Court of Arbitration (at Pakistan's request), the World Bank created parallel legal proceedings. This has led to inconsistent interpretations, jurisdictional conflicts, and institutional overlap.

• **Vulnerability to Geopolitical Friction:** India's decision to place the treaty in abeyance following the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack highlights how security concerns can disrupt technical cooperation, rendering the treaty's dispute mechanisms ineffective.

• **Inability to Handle Modern Engineering Realities:** The 1960 treaty criteria do not fully accommodate modern run-of-the-river technology and climate change-induced flow variations, leading to differing technical interpretations that escalate into legal disputes.

**Conclusion:**

To resolve these structural bottlenecks, the dispute resolution mechanism must be streamlined to prevent parallel proceedings. India and Pakistan must engage in bilateral negotiations to update the treaty's technical parameters and establish a clear, hierarchical dispute resolution pathway, ensuring the treaty remains sustainable in the 21st century.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), consider the following statements: 1. The treaty allocates the waters of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers primarily to India for unrestricted use. 2. The World Bank is a signatory to the treaty. 3. The treaty permits India to build run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, subject to specific design criteria. Which of the statements given above are correct?

1. 1 and 2 only
2. 2 and 3 only
3. 1 and 3 only
4. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: B. Statement 1 is incorrect because the treaty allocates the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) primarily to Pakistan, while the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) are allocated to India. Statements 2 and 3 are correct: the World Bank is a signatory to the treaty, and India is allowed run-of-the-river power generation on the Western Rivers.

Q2. The Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant, recently in the news due to a dispute between India and Pakistan, is located on which of the following rivers?

1. Chenab
2. Ravi
3. Indus
4. Jhelum

Answer: A. The Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP) is a run-of-the-river hydroelectric power station currently under construction on the Chenab River in the Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir.

Q3. Under Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty, what is the correct sequence of the graded dispute resolution mechanism?

1. Permanent Indus Commission → Neutral Expert → Court of Arbitration
2. Permanent Indus Commission → Court of Arbitration → Neutral Expert
3. Court of Arbitration → Permanent Indus Commission → Neutral Expert
4. Neutral Expert → Court of Arbitration → Permanent Indus Commission

Answer: A. The treaty outlines a three-step graded mechanism: first, bilateral resolution through the Permanent Indus Commission; second, if technical differences arise, referral to a Neutral Expert; and third, if legal disputes persist, referral to a Court of Arbitration.

Revision flashcards

• Which rivers are designated as 'Western Rivers' under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), and to which country are they primarily allocated? The Western Rivers are the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. They are primarily allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use, with limited exceptions for India (such as run-of-the-river power generation).
• Which rivers are designated as 'Eastern Rivers' under the IWT, and to which country are they allocated? The Eastern Rivers are the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. They are allocated to India for unrestricted use.
• What triggered India's decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in 'abeyance' in 2025? India placed the treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, linking treaty compliance to Pakistan stopping cross-border terrorism.
• Why does India reject the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration (CoA) constituted by the World Bank? India argues that the CoA was constituted in violation of the treaty's graded dispute resolution mechanism, which requires technical differences to be resolved by a Neutral Expert first, rather than running parallel proceedings.
• Where is the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) headquartered, and when was it established? The PCA is headquartered at The Hague, Netherlands, and was established in 1899 by the First Hague Peace Conference.