Pakistan Hails Arbitration Ruling on J&K Hydroelectric Projects, India Calls It Illegal and Rejects Jurisdiction

Pakistan has welcomed a recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague over two disputed hydroelectric projects—Kishenganga and Ratle—being built by India in Jammu and Kashmir. The PCA’s latest ruling, called a “supplemental award,” upholds its jurisdiction to adjudicate the long-standing dispute raised under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. While Pakistan sees this as a major legal victory, India has outright rejected the ruling, calling the arbitration panel “illegally constituted” and its findings “non-binding.”

The core of the dispute centers on the design and operational details of the Kishenganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, respectively—both rivers allocated to Pakistan under the treaty. Pakistan contends that certain design features of the Indian projects violate the treaty’s conditions that restrict India from altering the natural flow of water or creating storage capacity on rivers meant for Pakistan’s use.

In technical terms, Pakistan objected to features such as:

• Low-level gated spillways on the Ratle dam that could potentially allow India to manipulate water flow.

• Drawdown flushing in the Kishenganga project that may reduce sediment buildup but could also be used to control water release.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that India's recent move to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty in April does not impact the court’s authority to continue hearing the case. According to the PCA, its jurisdiction was established prior to India's suspension of the treaty and remains valid. The court emphasized that its decisions are binding on both parties.

India, however, has strongly opposed this conclusion. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that India never recognized the establishment of this court, claiming that its creation itself was a “serious breach” of the Indus Waters Treaty, which already provides a structured mechanism for dispute resolution. India maintains that the valid channel for resolving such disputes is through bilateral negotiations or a Neutral Expert, not an arbitral tribunal.

In fact, India views the PCA proceedings as a parallel and unauthorized mechanism initiated unilaterally by Pakistan, contrary to the treaty’s dispute resolution process. India argues that Pakistan’s repeated attempts to internationalize technical disagreements are a misuse of international legal forums.

Reacting to the PCA’s assertion of authority, India reiterated that no court—even one claiming to be under the Indus Waters Treaty—can question its sovereign decisions, especially after India placed the treaty “in abeyance” in April 2024 following a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam. India justified this move under international law, citing Pakistan’s ongoing support for cross-border terrorism as the reason to suspend its treaty obligations.

Meanwhile, Pakistan said it remains open to dialogue and called on India to return to "meaningful engagement" over water-sharing arrangements. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said the ruling sends a clear message that India cannot unilaterally suspend or sideline the Indus Waters Treaty, which has been a cornerstone of peaceful water-sharing between the two nations for over six decades.

The growing legal, political, and strategic tensions around water-sharing between India and Pakistan underline the fragility of the treaty in the face of terrorism-related hostilities and rising infrastructure development in sensitive regions. While Pakistan sees the ruling as an international validation of its concerns, India remains adamant that it has followed all technical norms and sees the arbitration as an act of overreach.

With this latest ruling deepening the diplomatic standoff, prospects for a resolution through dialogue remain uncertain—yet essential to prevent further escalation over shared water resources.