Islamabad:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in favor of Pakistan on issues of general interpretation of the Treaty of the Water of the Indo, saying that India would let the waters of the Western rivers flow for the use without restrictions of Pakistan.
The Hague -based PCA issued a binding award on the interpretation of the IWT on August 8, 2025, which was published on its website on Monday, in a case presented by Pakistan in 2016. The court says that the awards of an arbitration court and the decisions of a neutral expert are final and linking on both parties.
PCA has also ruled that the exceptions specified for the generation of hydroelectric plants must strictly adjust to the requirements established in the IWT, instead of what India could consider an “ideal” or “best practices” approach.
The dispute between Pakistan and India focused on the design of India of River Hydroelectric Plants in the West Rivers, which included Indo, Jhelum, Chenab. Pakistan argued the violation of IWT’s provisions. India did not participate in the procedures, but was informed and invited to join at each stage.
The Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction, despite the objections of India and its unilateral decision of April 2025 to maintain the IWT in suspense. The court unanimously determined that it was properly constituted and was competent to resolve the disputes established in the Pakistan arbitration request.
The ruling provides a general interpretation of the IWT provisions, particularly article III and Annex D, establishing design restrictions at low -level points of sale, closed spills, turbine intake, parking and freemazal to protect Pakistan’s downstream water rights.
“The general rule is that India ‘will allow the waters of the Western rivers for unrestricted use of Pakistan. There are certain specific exceptions to this rule, even in relation to the generation of hydroelectric energy, but these exceptions must be strictly interpreted,” he said, according to a press release.
“The design and operation of river hydroelectric plants strictly execute the treaty requirements [IWT]Instead of what India could consider an “ideal” or “best practices” approach, said the PCA award.
The court prohibited low -level water outlets in the Pakistani rivers. He also prohibited low -level points of sale by India unless it is strictly necessary for sediment control or technical purposes and added that they must have a minimum size and at the highest possible level.
The court explained that low -level points of sale were applied to the openings in the dam that are partially or completely below the level of dead storage, including hole vegetables, but do not apply to spills or intakes activated for turbines.
The closed dumping, continues, applies to the landfills on the crest of the structure of the dam, stating that, as a starting point, India must strive to design plants without landfills, such as through the use of an univoted landfill.
In addition, the PCA said, the parking required for firm energy was calculated according to the accumulated water for a period of seven days to the minimum average discharge, a historically low flow rate, taking into account the requirements for subsequent daily and weekly release requirements.
“The maximum pond is no more than double this amount, he said.” When designing a river plant, India only has the right to Freeboard, the vertical distance in the wall of the dam from the level of complete supply to the upper part of the dam, of a necessary height to address the safety of the dam as a whole, from the lining, with reference to the internationally recognized standards. “
For each of the dam design components, the PCA recommended that the parties must cooperate from an early stage of Indian planning for a new hydroelectric plant in the Western rivers, so that Indian designs could be modified as necessary in the light of the valid concerns raised by Pakistan.
“The awards of an arbitration court are final and binding for the parties (India and Pakistan), and have a legal controlling effect on subsequent neutral experts, the subsequent courts of arbitration and the court that issued the prize,” said the PCA.
“The decisions of a neutral expert in matters within their competence are final and binding for the parties and any arbitration court, with respect to the particular matter (and plant) in which the decision is made,” he added.
The experts call the “great success for Pakistan” award, since the International Arbitration Court supported Pakistan’s claims that India could not keep the IWT in suspense and reduce water flows in Pakistani rivers through the construction of dams.
“Pakistan had challenged two problems against India in the International Court of Arbitration related to water flows in the Pakistani rivers: a problem was that India could not reduce water flows in these rivers through the construction of dams,” said the former water commissioner of Indo Jamaat Ali Shah.
“The second problem was Pakistan’s objection to the design and construction of rats and Kishanganga dams built by India,” he added. “Pakistan maintained in his position that India must allow the flow of water in the Pakistani rivers, in accordance with the provisions of the Indo Water Treaty.”
Shah said the court had awarded a prize in favor of Pakistan on the first issue, which requires India to continue water flow according to the IWT. He said the court would issue its decision on the design and construction of the dams of rattle and Kishanganga after hearing the opinions of both sides.
According to Shah, India had opposed the jurisdiction of the Court, but the court proceeded with the case and granted a decision in favor of Pakistan. “The court has supported Pakistan’s claims,” said the former water commissioner.
Speaking of holding IWT in abilement, Shah called him “a dangerous movement.” He added that even the World Bank had also rejected the position of India, and no other country had supported the statements of the Delhi or has supported the decision.
“India has maintained the treaty in suspense; therefore, it is not sharing water data with Pakistan,” he said. He urged the Pakistani government to present a case in the International Court of Arbitration to challenge the reluctance of India to share water data.
“We need to eliminate this problem from the treaty,” he suggested. Having emphasis that India had also cited changes in environmental conditions, said that Pakistan was not the exception, since she also faced the same challenges. “Pakistan and India should address environmental problems separately,” he said.
Referring to Pakistan’s recent position on the revision of the treaty by involving the commissioners of both countries, Shah said: “The commissioners of both countries regulate the treaty; therefore, the Pakistan government should work to review the treaty,” he added.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a prominent lawyer and former law minister, told The Express PAkGazette that the International Arbitration Court had supported Pakistan’s point of view, qualifying it as great success. He said that the support had also strengthened Pakistan’s position in the international community.
The prize does not yet decide on the specific cases of Kishenguanga and Ratle projects; That “it will be addressed in subsequent procedures,” said the court. The IWT objective is to balance the use of water and avoid unilateral advantages, recognizing the vulnerability of Pakistan as the riparian downstream.
