Critically analyse the role played by the Indian Judiciary in the application of IHL principles.

The Indian Judiciary's role in the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles is paramount, yet it's a complex interplay between domestic law and international obligations.

Firstly, the Indian Judiciary has demonstrated a commitment to upholding IHL principles through judicial activism and interpretation. In cases involving armed conflict, the judiciary has often relied on IHL principles to ensure the protection of human rights and adherence to humanitarian standards. For instance, in the landmark case of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court recognized the applicability of IHL to internal armed conflicts, underscoring the judiciary's willingness to incorporate international norms into domestic legal frameworks.

Secondly, the Indian Judiciary serves as a check on executive actions during armed conflicts, ensuring compliance with IHL. Through judicial review, courts scrutinize government policies and actions to prevent violations of humanitarian norms. In cases such as Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, the judiciary has intervened to investigate alleged human rights abuses, holding state actors accountable for violations of IHL principles like proportionality and distinction.

However, challenges persist in the effective application of IHL by the Indian Judiciary. Limited awareness and understanding of IHL among legal practitioners and judges can hinder its consistent application. Additionally, issues of sovereignty and national security sometimes lead to reluctance in fully embracing IHL standards, particularly in conflicts labeled as matters of internal security.

Moreover, the absence of specific legislation incorporating IHL into domestic law complicates its enforcement and application. While India is a party to certain international conventions like the Geneva Conventions, their implementation often requires enabling legislation, which is lacking in some areas.

In conclusion, while the Indian Judiciary has made significant strides in applying IHL principles, there remain challenges that need to be addressed for more effective implementation. Strengthening legal education on IHL, enacting specific legislation, and fostering greater cooperation with international bodies can enhance the judiciary's role in upholding humanitarian norms during armed conflicts.