ISLAMABAD: In a major boon for Pakistan in its dispute over the `one-sided` suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has ruled that India`s actions have no bearing on its competence to adjudicate the matter.

The court found that its competence cannot be affected by the unilateral decision of a party taken after the initiation of arbitral proceedings, regardless of whether India`s recent decision was characterised as a suspension of the treaty, or otherwise.

The court further found that it has a continuing responsibility to advance proceedings in a timely, efficient and fair manner, notwithstanding India`s position on `abeyance`.

It also declared that these findings also apply to the Neutral Expert, appointed in separate proceedings.

The decision, which was hailed by Islamabad and `rejected by New Delhi, marks a major legal win for Pakistan. At the heart of the decision is a clear message that India cannot unilaterally suspend or sideline the treaty.

The court based its ruling firmly on the treaty`s text, especially Article XII(4), which says the treaty stays in force unless both countries agree to end it through a formal agreement. This leaves noroom for one side to walk away or put the treaty on pause.

This is consistent with the provisions of international law, particularly the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).The ruling also emphasises the importance of the treaty`s built-in dispute resolution system. According to the court, letting one country unilaterally ignore the arbitration process would undermine the treaty`s very purpose. This reflects the principle that treaties should be interpreted in a way that gives their provisions real meaning and effect.

Crucially, the court has rejected India`s claim that it could simply pull out of the proceedings and halt arbitration.

It has also reaffirmed its own authority to decide on its jurisdiction, pointing out that once the process has started, it can`t be disrupted by one party backing out.

`Supplemental award` Friday`s decision by The Hague-based Court of Arbitration was a `Supplemental Award on the Competence of the Court` in a matter initiated by Pakistan.

In these proceedings, Pakistan had requested the court to address the interpretation and application of IWT to certain design elements of the run-ofriver hydro-electric projects (Kishenganga and Ratle) that India was permitted by the treaty to construct on the tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, before those rivers flow into Pakistan.

In the unanimous decision, the court found that its competence cannot be affected by the unilateral decision of a party taken after the initiation of the arbitral proceedings, regardless of whether India`s recent decision was characterized under international law as a suspension of the treaty or otherwise.

Pakistan had initiated the present arbitral proceedings in 2016. Subsequently, India requested that the World Bank appoint a neutral expert (a highly-qualified engineer) to address certain design and operation questions that were essentiallyidentical to some of the questions presented by Pakistan in its request for arbitration.

In December 2016, the World Bank, which has a special but essentially ministerial role under the Treaty, decided to `pause` the process of appointing the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration and the Neutral Expert. This pause was lifted in 2022, following which the Court of Arbitration was empaneled and the neutral expert was appointed.

On July 6, 2023, the Court issued its Award on the Competence of the Court, in which the court carefully considered objections to the competence of the Court raised by India (by way of correspondence to the World Bank).

In a unanimous decision, the court rejected each of the objections raised by India and determined that the court is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan`s request for arbitration.

The court then recalled the well-settled rule of customary international law that events occurring after the initiation of proceedings can have no effect on the jurisdiction of the rele-vant court or tribunal.

This rule, reflected in decisions of the International Court of Justice and international arbitral tribunals, confirmed the Court`s conclusion that, once established, the court`s jurisdiction cannot be defeated by a party`s unilateral action.

Applying these findings to India`s decision that the `Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect`, the court found that it was not open to India to take unilateral action to suspend these proceedings, regardless of how India`s position was characterized or justified under international law.

Reactions from Islamabad, New Delhi The government of Pakistan noted that the court had affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments, and that unilateral action by India cannot deprive either the court or the Neutral Expert, in the proceedings initiated by India, of their competence to adjudicate the issues before them.

Pakistan looks forward to receiving the court`s award on the First Phase on the Merits indue course following the hearing that was held in Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024, a statement said.

The high priority, at this point, the statement said, was that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

It recalled that to this end, PM Shehbaz Sharif had stated on June 24, 2025 that Pakistan was `ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Jammu & Kashmir, water, trade and terrorism.

Meanwhile, India `categorically rejected` the supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration on its Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, saying that it `never recognised` the Court of Arbitration.

`India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India`s position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award ordecision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,` India`s Ministry of External Affairs said.

`Today, the illegal Court of Arbitration, purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, albeit in brazen violation of it, has issued what it characterises as a `supplemental award` on its competence concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

The MEA described the Court of Arbitration`s latest declarations as a `charade at Pakistan`s behest`.

`Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body, which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India`s actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign,` it said.

Baqir Sajjad Syed in Islamabad and our Correspondent in New Delhi also contributed to this report