The Indian judiciary has played a nuanced and evolving role in the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, particularly in the context of South Asia, where protracted conflicts, insurgencies, and cross-border tensions have often tested the limits of domestic legal frameworks. While India is a signatory to several international conventions, including the Geneva Conventions, the domestic implementation and judicial interpretation of these norms have largely depended on the judiciary’s activism and willingness to engage with IHL principles, especially in cases involving armed conflicts, human rights violations, and counter-terrorism operations. One key area where the judiciary has engaged with IHL is the protection of civilians and non-combatants during internal armed conflicts. Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have emphasized that even in times of insurgency or internal strife, fundamental rights under the Constitution, such as the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, cannot be suspended. For instance, in cases relating to the use of force in Jammu and Kashmir or the North-Eastern states, the judiciary has often called for adherence to proportionality and necessity principles, which are