Islamabad:
The Permanent Arbitration Court (PCA) gave benefit to Pakistan in questions of general interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty and said that India would let the water flow in the Western rivers to Pakistan’s unlimited use.
The Haag-based PCA issued a binding award for the interpretation of IWT on August 8, 2025, which was published on its website on Monday, in a case brought by Pakistan in 2016.
PCA has also decided that the specified exceptions for generating hydroelectric plants must strictly comply with the requirements laid down in IWT, rather than what India can consider as an “ideal” or “best practice” approach.
The dispute between Pakistan and India was centered on India’s design of run-of-river hydropower plants on the western rivers, which included Indus, Jhelum, Chenab. Pakistan claimed violation of the IWT provisions. India did not participate in the case but was kept informed and invited to participate at all phases.
The court confirmed its jurisdiction despite the objections of India and its unilateral decision to hold IWT in Abeyance in April 2025. The court unanimously decided that it was properly composed and was competent to resolve the disputes described in Pakistan’s request for arbitration.
The decision provides a general interpretation of IWT provisions, especially Article III and Annex D, which sets design restrictions at low-level, gated spillways, turbine intake, Dondage and freeboard to protect Pakistan’s downstream hiking rights.
“The general rule is that India ‘should’ let ‘flow’ the water in the western rivers of Pakistan’s unlimited use. There are certain specified exceptions to this rule, including in relation to generating hydroelectric power, but these exceptions must be strictly interpreted,” it said according to a press release.
“The design and operation of Run-of-River Hydroelectric Plants must chop strictly to the requirements of the Treaty [IWT]Rather than what India can consider an ‘ideal’ or ‘best practice’ approach, “the PCA prize states.
The court banned the low level of water in the Pakistani rivers. It also prohibited the low level of businesses of India, unless strictly necessary for sediment control or technical purposes and added that they must be minimal in size and at the highest possible level.
The court explained that low-level stores used for openings in the dam, which are placed partially or completely below dead stock level, including opening openings, but does not apply to crest-gated games or intake of the turbines.
The gated spillways, it continues, applies to waste roads at the top of the dam structure and says that India should, as a starting point, strive to design plants without gated gamingways, such as using a non-gated spill.
Furthermore, PCA said, the required pond required for fixed current should be calculated on the basis of the water accumulated over a seven-day period at least average emissions-a historically low flow speed-under consideration of the daily and weekly downstream release requirements.
“Maximum Dam is no more than double this amount, said it.” When designing a run-of-river system, India is only entitled to free table-the vertical distance in the dam wall from the full level of supply to the top of the dam-a height needed to tackle the dam’s safety as a whole from overpower, with reference to internationally recognized standards. “
For each of the components of DAM Design, PCA recommended that the parties cooperate from an early phase of planning from India for a new hydroelectric plant on Western Rivers so that India’s design could be changed as needed in the light of valid concerns raised by Pakistan.
“Prizes from an arbitration court are finally and binding on the parties (India and Pakistan) and have a controlling legal effect on subsequent neutral experts, subsequent courts of arbitration and the court issued the award,” PCA gave.
“Decisions from a neutral expert in issues within his or her competence are finally and binding on the parties and any arbitration court with regard to the special question (and facility) that the decision makes,” added it.
Experts denote the award “a great success for Pakistan” as the international arbitration court approved the allegations of Pakistan that India could not keep IWT in accordance and reduce water flows to Pakistani rivers by building dams.
“Pakistan had challenged two questions against India at the international arbitration court related to water flows in Pakistani rivers: One question was that India could not reduce the flow of water in these rivers by building dams,” said former Indus -Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah.
“The second question was Pakistan’s objection to the design and construction of the Ratle and Kishanga traps that were built by India,” he added. “Pakistan maintained in his position that India should allow the flow of water to Pakistani rivers, in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty.”
Shah said the court had given a prize in favor of Pakistan about the first issue that required India to continue the flow of water in accordance with IWT. He said the court would make its decision on the design and construction of the Ramle and Kishanga traps after hearing the views from both sides.
According to Shah, India had an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, but the court continued with the case and awarded a decision in favor of Pakistan. “The court has approved Pakistan’s claims,” said the former Water Commissioner.
When he talked about holding IWT in Abeyance, Shah called it “a dangerous feature”. He added that even the World Bank had also rejected India’s attitude, and no other country had approved Delhi’s claims or supported the decision.
“India has had the treaty in Abeyance; therefore, it does not share water data with Pakistan,” he said. He called on the Pakistani government to file a case in the international court of arbitration to challenge India’s reluctance to share water data.
“We have to decouple this question from the treaty,” he suggested. He emphasized that India had also cited changes in environmental conditions, noting that Pakistan was also no exception as it also faced the same challenges. “Pakistan and India had to take care of environmental issues separately,” he said.
Referring to Pakistan’s recent attitude to revision of the treaty by engaging commissioners in both countries, Shah said, “Commissioners in both countries regulate the Treaty; therefore the Pakistan government should work to revise the treaty,” he added.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a prominent lawyer and former attorney’s minister, told The Express Pakinomist that the International Court of Arbitration had approved Pakistan’s point of view and called it a great success. He said the approval had also strengthened Pakistan’s position in the international community.
The award does not yet decide the specific cases of Kis -Retangence and Ratle projects; which “will be processed in later procedures,” the court said. The award emphasizes IWT’s goal is to balance water consumption and avoid unilateral benefits and recognize Pakistan’s vulnerability as downstream Riparian.
