PCA upholds restrictions on pondage for Indian projects
Says IWT places limits on Delhi’s ability to control flow
ISLAMABAD:
In a landmark ruling, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague delivered a supplemental award upholding Pakistan’s position regarding maximum pondage limits for Indian hydroelectric projects on the western rivers.
Under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed by Pakistan and India in 1960 with the World Bank as a signatory and facilitator, the three eastern rivers of the Indus system – the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – were allocated to India, while the three western rivers – the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – were allocated primarily to Pakistan.
Pondage refers to the temporary storage of water in a reservoir or pond behind a dam or hydroelectric project for regulating water flow and power generation.
Pakistan in August 2016 approached the court to resolve disputes regarding the design of Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant and Ratle Hydroelectric Plant that India was building on the western rivers in held Kashmir.
After proceedings lasting almost ten years, the court delivered a supplementary award on May 15, 2026, upholding Pakistan’s position despite India’s complete boycott of the proceedings.
The court reinforced strict restrictions on India’s ability to store or disrupt flows from the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers – waters vital for Pakistan’s agriculture, economy, and millions of livelihoods.
This development comes against the backdrop of India’s controversial decision to hold the IWT in “abeyance” following the Pahalgam attack in April 2025 – a move the treaty itself does not permit.
In an official statement issued on X, the Government of Pakistan noted with “utmost satisfaction” the ruling on Sunday. According to the statement, the court’s verdict affirms that the IWT places substantive and enforceable limits on India’s ability to control water flows.
It stressed, the statement said, that these limits are not procedural formalities but must be applied at the planning and design stages of hydroelectric projects, and cannot be fulfilled through post-facto assurances of operational restraint
The government said the court clearly ruled that pondage for run-of-river plants must be justified based on actual project requirements, expected operations, site hydrology, hydraulic conditions, power-system needs, and detailed information under the IWT framework.
Referring to the court’s earlier General Issues Award of August 8, 2025, the statement noted that the Supplemental Award gives practical effect to the requirement that installed capacity and anticipated load must be realistic, well-founded, and defensible.
Installed capacity, it said, must correspond to actual expected operations, hydrological and hydraulic data, and the Treaty provisions, while anticipated load must reflect real operational needs and projected power system demand.
The government emphasised that the ruling addresses a core concern under the IWT, making it clear that India cannot justify increased pondage through inflated capacity projections, artificial load curves, unrealistic peaking assumptions, or mere assertions of compliance with Paragraph 15 release limits.
“While Paragraph 15 remains an operational constraint, it cannot substitute for evidence-based justification of water-control capacity,” it said.
It further noted that any deviation in operating patterns must be supported by specific data and verifiable information provided by India.
Highlighting another key aspect of the verdict, the government said the award strengthens Pakistan’s review rights by requiring India to provide sufficient information and explanation to enable assessment of Treaty compliance.
Failure to do so, it said, would mean India has not met its burden of demonstrating that proposed pondage complies with Paragraph 8(c) of Annexure D.
According to the statement, the court also confirmed that any applicable minimum-flow obligation must be taken into account when calculating pondage required for firm power, where such obligations exist and are not otherwise satisfied.
It clarified that Paragraph 15 release requirements do not automatically fulfil such obligations. Pakistan also recalled the court’s earlier finding that arbitral awards are final and binding on both parties and carry controlling legal effect for subsequent Treaty bodies on matters of interpretation.
The government said it would place these interpretations before the Neutral Expert process in line with the IWT procedures and confidentiality arrangements.
Reaffirming its commitment to the IWT and peaceful dispute resolution, Pakistan said it would continue to safeguard its rights and pursue all lawful and diplomatic avenues to ensure that power projects on the western rivers are designed and operated within treaty limits.
The government described the verdict as a strategic consolidation of Pakistan’s treaty position, stressing that maximum pondage must be realistic, evidence-based, hydrologically grounded, justified by power-system needs, Treaty-compliant, and not inflated through artificial assumptions.
