India rejects ‘supplemental award’ on Kishenganga, Ratle hydropower projects, Pg10

Key Highlights:

• India has categorically rejected the supplemental award issued by the Court of Arbitration regarding the Kishenganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir.
• India asserted that it never recognised the Court, calling its constitution a “serious breach” of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960.
• The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) called the proceedings before this arbitral body as illegal and void ab initio.
• Pakistan had unilaterally approached the World Bank in 2016, bypassing the bilateral dispute resolution mechanism under Article IX of the IWT.
• Following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, India placed the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance”, citing national sovereignty and cross-border terrorism.
• India maintains that it is no longer bound by treaty obligations until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably ends support for terrorism.
• India described the Court’s actions as a “charade at Pakistan’s behest” and reaffirmed its rejection of any ruling from an illegally constituted tribunal.

Detailed Insights:

• The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) allocates the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India, and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, with specific rights for India to build run-of-the-river projects under design limitations.
• Pakistan challenged the design features (including spillway size, pondage, etc.) of Kishenganga and Ratle, fearing reduction in downstream water flow.
• The dispute resolution mechanism under IWT begins with bilateral talks, followed by a Neutral Expert, and finally a Court of Arbitration, only if earlier steps fail.
• Pakistan bypassed the Neutral Expert route in 2016 and sought a CoA directly — a move India regards as unilateral and in violation of IWT protocol.
• The World Bank controversially initiated both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration simultaneously, creating legal ambiguity and procedural conflict.
• India’s recent assertion that the treaty is in abeyance marks a strategic shift — linking international legal commitments to national security imperatives.
• This episode reflects India’s evolving doctrine of conditional treaty compliance, especially when dealing with countries involved in cross-border terror.
• The supplemental award is not about final resolution but about the Court of Arbitration affirming its own competence, which India fully rejects.
• India has invoked sovereign rights under international law to justify its non-compliance with the IWT until a change in Pakistan’s terror policy.
• The case raises doubts about the World Bank’s neutrality and the effectiveness of third-party dispute mechanisms in the context of geopolitical hostilities.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) – A landmark bilateral treaty mediated by the World Bank in 1960 that governs the sharing of Indus river waters.
• Run-of-the-River Projects – Hydroelectric systems that generate power without large dams; permissible under IWT with constraints.
• Court of Arbitration (CoA) – An ad hoc international tribunal under IWT to resolve disputes if bilateral and neutral expert solutions fail.
• Neutral Expert – A technical body under IWT that addresses design-related and factual disputes, usually preferred by India.