ISLAMABAD - The Government of Pakistan has welcomed the Court of Arbitration's Supplemental Award concerning Maximum Pondage, delivered on May 15, 2026, in the Indus Waters Treaty proceedings arising from disputes over the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant and the Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project design .
The Award affirms Pakistan's central position that the Treaty places substantive limits on India's water-control capability on the Western Rivers - limits that apply at the planning and design stage and cannot be satisfied merely by later assurances of operational restraint .
The Supplemental Award builds on the Court's General Issues Award of August 8, 2025, giving practical effect to the standard that installed capacity and anticipated load must be realistic, well-founded, and defensible .
| Key Principle | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Realistic installed capacity | Must correspond to actual expected operation, hydrologic and hydraulic data, and Treaty requirements |
| Defensible anticipated load | Must correspond to actual expected operation and projected needs of the power system the plant is intended to serve |
| Evidence-based justification | India cannot justify increased Pondage through imagined capacity, artificial load curves, or unrealistic peaking assumptions |
| Paragraph 15 is not a substitute | Operational constraints cannot replace evidence-based justification of water-control capacity |
The Award addresses a core Treaty concern: India cannot justify increased Pondage through imagined capacity, artificial load curves, unrealistic peaking assumptions, or bare assertions of compliance with Paragraph 15 release limits .
Under the Award, Pondage for a Run-of-River Plant must be justified by:
Real project needs
Actual expected operation
Site hydrology and hydraulic conditions
Power-system requirements
Information and explanation required under the Treaty
This rejects India's longstanding practice of designing projects with maximum possible capacity without regard to hydrological realities or Treaty limits .
The Award also strengthens Pakistan's review rights. India must provide Pakistan with sufficient information and explanation to assess Treaty compliance .
| Pakistan's Right | Implication |
|---|---|
| Information and explanation | India must share data to justify proposed Pondage |
| Assessment of compliance | Pakistan can evaluate whether Treaty limits are respected |
| Burden of proof | If India fails to provide information, it fails to carry its burden |
If India fails to do so, it fails to carry its burden of establishing that the proposed maximum Pondage satisfies Paragraph 8(c) of Annexure D .
The Court further confirmed that any applicable minimum-flow obligation must be taken into account in calculating Pondage required for Firm Power where such obligation exists and is not otherwise satisfied .
Crucially, Paragraph 15 release requirements do not automatically satisfy such an obligation . This prevents India from using operational release limits as a substitute for proper project design .
Pakistan notes the Court's earlier holding that the awards of a Court of Arbitration are final and binding on the Parties and have otherwise controlling legal effect for subsequent Treaty bodies on relevant questions of Treaty interpretation .
Pakistan will place these interpretations before the Neutral Expert process , consistent with Treaty procedures and applicable confidentiality arrangements .
| Issue | India's Position | Award's Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Pondage justification | India argued operational assurances sufficient | Must be justified by real project needs, hydrology, power-system requirements |
| Installed capacity | India sought maximum possible capacity | Must correspond to actual expected operation |
| Anticipated load | India used artificial load curves | Must correspond to actual expected operation and projected power system needs |
| Paragraph 15 as substitute | India argued release limits satisfied Treaty | Operational constraints are not substitutes for evidence-based justification |
| Information sharing | India reluctant to share data | Must provide Pakistan sufficient information to assess compliance |
| Minimum-flow obligations | India argued Paragraph 15 satisfied requirement | Minimum-flow obligations must be separately considered |
Pakistan remains committed to the Indus Waters Treaty, its dispute-resolution procedures, and the peaceful settlement of water-related differences .
Pakistan will continue to protect its rights under the IWT and will pursue every lawful and diplomatic means to ensure that hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers are designed and operated strictly within Treaty limits .
The Award is a strategic consolidation of Pakistan's Treaty position : maximum Pondage must be:
Realistic
Evidence-based
Hydrologically grounded
Power-system justified
Treaty-compliant
Incapable of inflation through artificial assumptions
The Supplemental Award significantly constrains India's ability to design hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) in ways that could affect Pakistan's water supply .
India can no longer:
Design projects based on imagined or exaggerated capacity
Use artificial load curves to justify increased Pondage
Rely on operational release limits as substitutes for proper project design
Withhold information needed for Pakistan to assess Treaty compliance
India must now:
Justify Pondage based on real project needs and actual hydrology
Ensure installed capacity corresponds to expected operation
Provide Pakistan with sufficient information to assess compliance
Take minimum-flow obligations into account separately from release limits
Pakistan's strategic position under the Indus Waters Treaty has been significantly strengthened. The Court of Arbitration has affirmed that Treaty limits are substantive, not formalities - and that India cannot circumvent them through operational assurances or artificial assumptions .
