Pakistan Weighs Legal Action Against India Over Indus Waters Treaty Suspension
Pakistan is preparing to take international legal action against India following New Delhi’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a step Islamabad considers a breach of international obligations. The move follows a deadly assault in Indian-administered Kashmir, which has escalated regional tensions, according to a report by Reuters.
Minister of State for Law and Justice Aqeel Malik said Pakistan is finalizing consultations on a range of legal pathways. These include reaching out to the World Bank — the treaty’s original facilitator — as well as seeking recourse from the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
“Our legal review is in its final phase,” Malik stated, adding that a decision will be made shortly, potentially involving multiple legal forums. He also mentioned a diplomatic option: raising the issue before the United Nations Security Council.
India suspended the decades-old treaty last week, stating it would not restore it unless Pakistan took concrete steps to stop cross-border militancy. The suspension came in the wake of a fatal attack in Kashmir that killed 26 individuals. India claims the attackers had links to Pakistan, a charge Islamabad strongly denies.
In response, Pakistan has halted trade with India and closed its airspace to Indian aircraft. Authorities have also warned that any attempt by India to alter or block the water flow would be regarded as an act of aggression.
Established in 1960 with the World Bank’s mediation, the Indus Waters Treaty has historically survived several wars and political disputes. It governs water sharing from the Indus River system, which supplies roughly 80% of Pakistan’s irrigated agriculture.
Although India retains certain rights under the treaty—such as developing hydroelectric projects—it is explicitly barred from storing or diverting river flows. Malik stressed that unilateral suspension is not permitted under the treaty’s provisions and therefore lacks legal justification.
