India's Position
Parallel Proceedings Are Impermissible
India's legal argument is rooted in the structure of Article IX: the Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes cover overlapping subject matter and cannot run concurrently for the same dispute. When Pakistan triggered both mechanisms simultaneously (the Neutral Expert for Kishanganga and the Court of Arbitration for Ratle, or both processes for both projects), India argued this violated the treaty's architecture. The World Bank — a co-signatory — itself acknowledged the legal complexity and the risk of conflicting awards from parallel proceedings, and paused its involvement in both processes in 2017.
- World Bank: acknowledged the risk of conflicting awards from parallel processes in 2017
- India: participates in Neutral Expert process; refuses to participate in Court of Arbitration
- Pakistan: contends both processes are permissible under the treaty
- PCA tribunal (2023 award): asserted its own jurisdiction despite India's non-participation
- India's consistent response to all PCA/CoA awards: null and void
● Tracked since March 01, 2026 · last seen May 16, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief