The Indian judiciary has played a significant, though complex, role in the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, particularly in the context of South Asia where armed conflicts, cross-border tensions, and internal security challenges persist. While India is a signatory to certain international humanitarian conventions, the domestic enforcement of IHL often relies heavily on judicial interpretation, given the absence of a dedicated statutory framework fully incorporating IHL into national law. The judiciary has therefore acted as an essential bridge between international legal obligations and domestic implementation, though its effectiveness has been subject to both praise and criticism. In cases concerning armed conflicts and human rights violations, Indian courts have frequently invoked principles that resonate with IHL, such as the protection of civilians, prohibition of torture, and humane treatment of detainees. For instance, through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), courts have addressed issues like the treatment of prisoners in conflict zones, emphasizing the need for compliance with international norms even when domestic legislation is silent or ambiguous. This judicial activism has, in several instances, reinforced the protection of vulnerable populations affected by both internal insurgencies and external hostilities. The judiciary has