The federal government on Monday welcomed the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague to issue an “Award on Issues of General Interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)” in the Indus Waters case, stating that India must generally “let flow” the waters of the western rivers for Pakistan’s “unrestricted use”.
India in April held the IWT in abeyance following the attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 — an incident New Delhi blamed on Islamabad without evidence. Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”, noting the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. It later said it was considering court action, citing a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
A supplemental award by the PCA in June held that India could not unilaterally hold the treaty in abeyance. India, in response, said it did not recognise the court or its decisions.
A press release issued today by the PCA said it rendered an award on Friday in an arbitration initiated by Pakistan against India pursuant to Article IX and Annexure G to the IWT.
“This arbitration concerns the interpretation and application of the IWT to certain design elements of the run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India is permitted by the treaty to construct on the tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab Rivers.”
Regarding the overall approach to Article 3 (provisions regarding western rivers) of the IWT, the award said: “The general rule is that India shall ‘let flow’ the waters of the western rivers for Pakistan’s unrestricted use.
“There are certain specified exceptions to this rule, including in relation to the generation of hydroelectric power, but these exceptions must be strictly construed: the design and operation of run-of-river hydroelectric plants must hew strictly to the requirements in the treaty, rather than to what India might consider an ‘ideal’ or ‘best practices’ approach.”
It further noted that questions relating to the balance between the parties’ respective rights and obligations in this regard were to be identified and addressed through the treaty’s procedures for notification, objection and dispute resolution in furtherance of the treaty’s objective and its obligations of mutual cooperation.
More to follow.