Islamabad:
The permanent arbitration short (PCA) ruled in favor of Pakistan on the questions of general interpretation of the Industry Water Treaty, claiming that India would let the waters of Western rivers flow for the without restriction of Pakistan.
The APC based on La Haye awarded a binding price on the interpretation of ICTI on August 8, 2025, which was published Monday on its website, in a case deposited by Pakistan in 2016. The court affirms that the prices of an arbitration court and the decisions of a neutral expert are final and binding of the two parties.
The ACP also judged that the exceptions specified for the generation of hydroelectric plants must be strictly in accordance with the requirements established in the TFP, rather than what India could consider an “ideal” or “best practical” approach.
The dispute between Pakistan and India focused on the design of India of hydroelectric factories as standard of ruptures on Western rivers, which included Industs, Jhelum, Chenab. Pakistan has argued the violation of the IWT provisions. India did not participate in the procedure but was held informed and invited to join each stage.
The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction, despite the objections of India and its unilateral decision of April 2025 to maintain the TID in suspense. The Court unanimously determined that it was properly constituted and was competent to resolve the disputes set out at the request for arbitration of Pakistan.
The decision provides a general interpretation of the provisions of the ICTI, in particular article III and annex D, establishing design restrictions on low -level points of sale, closed spills, turbine intake, tray and freeboard to protect the rights of water downstream from Pakistan.
“The general rule is that India” lets flow “the waters of Western rivers for the without restriction of Pakistan. There are certain exceptions specified in this rule, including in relation to the generation of hydroelectric power, but these exceptions must be strictly interpreted,” he said, according to a press release.
“The design and exploitation of hydroelectric factories during the bank must be strictly strictly to the treatments of the treaty [IWT]Rather than what India could consider as an “ideal” approach or “best practices”, said the PCA price.
The courtyard prohibited low -level water outlets in Pakistani rivers. He also prohibited low -level sockets by India, unless it is strictly necessary for sediment control or technical purposes and added that they must be of minimum size and at the highest possible level.
The court explained that low -level sockets applied to the openings of the dam which are partially or entirely located below the level of dead storage, including orifice spills, but does not apply to spills or crest contributions for turbines.
The closed spills, he continues, apply to spills at the crest of the structure of the dam, declaring that as a starting point, India must strive to design plants without closed spills, as by the use of an uninformed spillway.
In addition, said the ACP said that the dipped dipping the power of the company should be calculated according to the water accumulated over a period of seven days at the minimum average discharge – a historically low speed – taking into account the daily and weekly requirements downstream.
“The maximum dipper does not exceed double this quantity, he said.” During the design of a serial round factory, India is entitled to Freeboard – the vertical distance in the dam wall from the entire supply level to the top of the dam – from a necessary height to meet the safety of the dam in its set of projection, in reference to the reference to internationally yield standards. “”
For each of the components of the design of the dams, the ACP recommended the parties to cooperate from an early stage of planning by India for a new hydroelectric factory on Western rivers, so that the conceptions of India could be modified as necessary in the light of the valid concerns raised by Pakistan.
“The prices of an arbitration court are final and binding on the parties (India and Pakistan), and have a legal effect controlling on subsequent neutral experts, subsequent arbitration courts and the court which awarded the sentence,” judged the ACP.
“The decisions of a neutral expert on questions within his competence are final and binding on the parties and any court of arbitration, with regard to the particular question (and the factory) on which the decision is taken,” he added.
Experts call for award “great success for Pakistan” while the International Arbitration Court approved Pakistan’s claims that India could not hold the SPI in suspense and reduce water flows in Pakistani rivers by building dams.
“Pakistan had challenged two questions against India before the International Arbitration Court linked to water flows in the Pakistani rivers: one question was that India could not reduce water flows in these rivers by building dams,” said the former Commissioner of Indus Jamaat Ali Shah.
“The second issue was Pakistan’s objection to the design and construction of Ratle and Kishanganga dams built by India,” he added. “Pakistan has maintained in its position that India must allow water flow in the Pakistani rivers, according to the provisions of the Indus water Treaty.”
Shah said the court had awarded a sentence in favor of Pakistan on the first question, forcing India to pursue the water flow in accordance with TVI. He declared that the court would make its decision on the design and construction of the Rattle and Kishanganga dams after hearing the views of the two parties.
According to Shah, India had opposed the jurisdiction of the court, but the court continued the case and awarded a decision in favor of Pakistan. “The court has approved Pakistan’s claims,” said the former water commissioner.
Speaking of holding IWT in suspense, Shah called him “a dangerous decision”. He added that even the World Bank had also rejected India’s position, and that no other country had approved Delhi’s complaints or supported the decision.
“India has held the in suspense treaty; therefore, it does not share the data on water with Pakistan,” he said. He urged the Pakistani government to file a case before the International Arbitration Court to challenge India’s reluctance to share water data.
“We have to link this question of the treaty,” he suggested. Stressing that India had also cited changes in environmental conditions, he noted that Pakistan was not exceptional, because it was also confronted with the same challenges. “Pakistan and India should solve environmental problems separately,” he said.
Referring to the recent position of Pakistan on the revision of the treaty by hiring the commissioners of the two countries, Shah said: “The commissioners of the two countries regulate the treaty; consequently, the Government of Pakistan should work to revise the treaty,” he added.
Ahmer Bilal SOOFI, an eminent lawyer and former minister of Law, told the Express PK Press Club that the International Arbitration Court had approved Pakistan’s point of view, qualifying it as success. He said approval also strengthened Pakistan’s position in the international community.
The price does not yet decide specific cases of Kishenganga and Ratle projects; Who “will be addressed in the subsequent procedure,” said the court. The attribution underlines that the objective of ITP is to balance water consumption and avoid unilateral advantages, recognizing the vulnerability of Pakistan as downstream riphailers.
