Arbitration Court Says India Cannot Put Indus Waters Treaty on Hold

The Court of Arbitration has ruled that India’s decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance” was not allowed under the treaty or international law.

In a unanimous decision issued on August 31, 2026, the Court said the treaty remains fully in force. It ruled that India is still bound by its obligations under the agreement and cannot suspend it unilaterally.

The Court examined several arguments that could potentially justify suspending or ending the treaty, including sovereignty, an alleged material breach, terrorism a major change in circumstances, armed conflict and countermeasures. It found that none of these grounds justified India’s decision.

On terrorism, the Court said that even if India’s allegations were assumed to be true for the purpose of its analysis, they would not amount to a material breach of the Indus Waters Treaty.

The Court also noted that under the treaty itself, India and Pakistan must act together through a further treaty if they want to modify or terminate the agreement.

Interim Measures on Ratle Hydroelectric Project

The Court also considered Pakistan’s request for interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (RHEP).

It unanimously approved three of Pakistan’s five requested measures, known as Measures A, B and C, with some changes.

Measures A and B: India cannot concrete parts of the RHEP dam wall and power-intake structure above specified levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert issues his final decision. That decision is expected in July 2027.

Measure C: India must inform the Court, the Neutral Expert and Pakistan about any changes to the RHEP construction schedule. This requirement will remain in place until the Neutral Expert issues his final decision.

Measures D and E: The Court did not grant these measures, finding that separate interim orders were not necessary.

The ruling means the Indus Waters Treaty remains legally in force, and India’s unilateral decision to place it in “abeyance” does not suspend its treaty obligations.