India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack is not just a diplomatic move—it is being backed by legal arguments and strategic deliberation.
The Ministry of Jal Shakti has reached out to the Attorney General of India to examine ways to exit the World Bank-mediated dispute resolution process that is currently underway over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir, ET reported quoting sources on Saturday.
This step follows India’s broader decision to suspend the 1960 treaty itself, which was brokered by the World Bank to manage the distribution of Indus system rivers between India and Pakistan.
A key question currently under review is whether India must formally notify the World Bank about its suspension of the treaty, or whether simply informing the ‘ Neutral Expert’—already engaged in the ongoing water dispute—would be sufficient to halt the mechanism.
This point matters because the dispute resolution process India is looking to exit is the only active one under the IWT. If India chooses to inform only the Neutral Expert, it may effectively bring the Kishanganga-Ratle case to a standstill, pushing the treaty into a state of limbo without engaging in formal withdrawal procedures with the World Bank.
Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance: What India told Pakistan
India officially communicated its position to Pakistan in a letter dated April 24. In it, Water Resources Secretary Debashree Mukherjee informed her counterpart Syed Ali Murtaza that the IWT no longer reflects current realities.
India’s letter highlighted a "fundamental change of circumstances"—pointing to demographic shifts, rising clean energy needs, and changes in assumptions that shaped the original treaty—as the rationale for suspending it.
The letter builds upon India’s repeated requests over the past few years for a renegotiation of the treaty’s terms. The trigger, New Delhi noted, was the World Bank’s decision to entertain simultaneous proceedings: the appointment of a Neutral Expert on India’s request and, concurrently, a Court of Arbitration (CoA) on Pakistan’s demand.
India had objected to this, saying it violated the treaty’s graded approach to dispute resolution. It had also expressed concern that such parallel processes undermined the treaty’s integrity.
The Vienna Convention clause India is invoking
To underpin its legal case, India has invoked the principle of rebus sic stantibus—a concept under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This international legal doctrine allows a state to withdraw from or suspend a treaty when there is a "fundamental change in circumstances" that were essential to the consent of the parties at the time the treaty was signed.
While India is not a party to the Vienna Convention, the principle is considered part of customary international law. By citing Article 62, New Delhi is effectively arguing that the foundational assumptions of the IWT have shifted so significantly that continuing to abide by the treaty is no longer feasible or in India’s national interest.
This legal reasoning adds weight to India's move, especially since it follows years of formal engagement under the treaty's own framework.
Since 2022, India has sent two notices seeking treaty modifications—first on January 25, 2023, and then again on August 30, 2024. These were clear indicators that India was looking to revise or exit the treaty within the framework of international law.
India’s legal options under review
India is now considering a range of legal options to reinforce its suspension of the IWT. Sources say the government is weighing whether a formal notification to the World Bank is required or if a unilateral pause through communication with the Neutral Expert would suffice.
The Neutral Expert currently overseeing the Kishanganga-Ratle dispute is Michel Lino, the President of the International Commission on Large Dams. He was appointed in 2022 under Article IX of the IWT and has already conducted multiple site visits and consultations. In January 2025, Lino declared himself "competent" to adjudicate the dispute—an outcome India had welcomed at the time.
However, with India now opting to suspend the treaty altogether, the process led by Lino may also be paused.
New Delhi had earlier asserted that the Neutral Expert “alone has the competence under the Treaty to decide these differences,” and that there is no provision for “parallel proceedings” on the same issues—referring to the simultaneous initiation of the CoA by Pakistan.
The Ministry of Jal Shakti has reached out to the Attorney General of India to examine ways to exit the World Bank-mediated dispute resolution process that is currently underway over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir, ET reported quoting sources on Saturday.
This step follows India’s broader decision to suspend the 1960 treaty itself, which was brokered by the World Bank to manage the distribution of Indus system rivers between India and Pakistan.
A key question currently under review is whether India must formally notify the World Bank about its suspension of the treaty, or whether simply informing the ‘ Neutral Expert’—already engaged in the ongoing water dispute—would be sufficient to halt the mechanism.
This point matters because the dispute resolution process India is looking to exit is the only active one under the IWT. If India chooses to inform only the Neutral Expert, it may effectively bring the Kishanganga-Ratle case to a standstill, pushing the treaty into a state of limbo without engaging in formal withdrawal procedures with the World Bank.
Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance: What India told Pakistan
India officially communicated its position to Pakistan in a letter dated April 24. In it, Water Resources Secretary Debashree Mukherjee informed her counterpart Syed Ali Murtaza that the IWT no longer reflects current realities.
India’s letter highlighted a "fundamental change of circumstances"—pointing to demographic shifts, rising clean energy needs, and changes in assumptions that shaped the original treaty—as the rationale for suspending it.
The letter builds upon India’s repeated requests over the past few years for a renegotiation of the treaty’s terms. The trigger, New Delhi noted, was the World Bank’s decision to entertain simultaneous proceedings: the appointment of a Neutral Expert on India’s request and, concurrently, a Court of Arbitration (CoA) on Pakistan’s demand.
India had objected to this, saying it violated the treaty’s graded approach to dispute resolution. It had also expressed concern that such parallel processes undermined the treaty’s integrity.
The Vienna Convention clause India is invoking
To underpin its legal case, India has invoked the principle of rebus sic stantibus—a concept under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This international legal doctrine allows a state to withdraw from or suspend a treaty when there is a "fundamental change in circumstances" that were essential to the consent of the parties at the time the treaty was signed.
While India is not a party to the Vienna Convention, the principle is considered part of customary international law. By citing Article 62, New Delhi is effectively arguing that the foundational assumptions of the IWT have shifted so significantly that continuing to abide by the treaty is no longer feasible or in India’s national interest.
This legal reasoning adds weight to India's move, especially since it follows years of formal engagement under the treaty's own framework.
Since 2022, India has sent two notices seeking treaty modifications—first on January 25, 2023, and then again on August 30, 2024. These were clear indicators that India was looking to revise or exit the treaty within the framework of international law.
India’s legal options under review
India is now considering a range of legal options to reinforce its suspension of the IWT. Sources say the government is weighing whether a formal notification to the World Bank is required or if a unilateral pause through communication with the Neutral Expert would suffice.
The Neutral Expert currently overseeing the Kishanganga-Ratle dispute is Michel Lino, the President of the International Commission on Large Dams. He was appointed in 2022 under Article IX of the IWT and has already conducted multiple site visits and consultations. In January 2025, Lino declared himself "competent" to adjudicate the dispute—an outcome India had welcomed at the time.
However, with India now opting to suspend the treaty altogether, the process led by Lino may also be paused.
New Delhi had earlier asserted that the Neutral Expert “alone has the competence under the Treaty to decide these differences,” and that there is no provision for “parallel proceedings” on the same issues—referring to the simultaneous initiation of the CoA by Pakistan.
You may also like
Jharkhand Anti Terror Squad arrest four, including woman, over alleged links to banned organisation
I'm a gardening expert and these are the five ways to stay safe outdoors
Gujarat police launches mega operation against illegal Bangladeshi residents
Donald Trump's 7-word exchange with Melania at Pope's funeral sparks 'side eye'
Zips of 20 bodies were open and private parts were out, even doctors were shocked by the horrific act of terrorists in Pahalgam
