As neurotechnology moves from labs to classrooms and courtrooms, Indian law faces a constitutional gap.
Earlier this year, a paralysed man in the United States moved a computer cursor using nothing but his thoughts. The feat, made possible through Elon Musk’s Neuralink, made headlines worldwide. Closer home, a Bengaluru-based start-up launched a lightweight headband that claims to track a student’s focus levels in real-time. What once seemed the stuff of science fiction is now quietly becoming part of classrooms, hospitals, and even consumer markets.
Neurotechnology — devices that can read, interpret, or influence brain activity — is advancing more rapidly than most legal systems can keep pace. In India, the gap between what technology can do and what the law regulates is particularly wide. And that gap matters, because unlike fingerprints or passwords, neural data can reveal something far more personal: our thoughts, emotions, and cognitive responses, in other words, what goes on inside our minds.
The Legal Silence Around the Brain
India has no dedicated legal framework for neurotechnology. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, governs personal and sensitive data, but makes no mention of neural data. The Constitution, however, offers a starting point. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. There is, however, one judgment that hints at this territory. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court struck down involuntary brain mapping and lie detector tests, holding that they violated both the right against self-incrimination and the guarantee of personal liberty.
Why This Matters Now
This legal silence isn’t a theoretical problem. Neural devices are already creeping into everyday life. Headbands that claim to monitor attention are being tested in classrooms. Globally, law enforcement agencies are exploring brainwave-based forensic tools. Meanwhile, private companies are collecting neural data to train algorithms for medical, educational, and even marketing purposes, often without clear regulatory standards for consent or data retention.
Global Legal Developments
Around the world, lawmakers have begun to recognise this new frontier. In 2021, Chile became the first country to amend its Constitution to enshrine neuro-rights. The European Union is debating how its AI Act and data protection rules should address neurotechnology. UNESCO and the OECD have both issued guidelines warning that cognitive surveillance could become a major human rights issue if left unchecked.
A Constitutional Opportunity
Indian constitutional law has often evolved by extending existing principles to meet new technological realities. The Puttaswamy judgment brought privacy into the digital era. The Selvi decision recognised mental autonomy, albeit in the narrow context of criminal investigations. Together, they provide the foundation for a more comprehensive legal approach to neurotechnology. Recognising “mental privacy” as part of Article 21 would give individuals a constitutional shield against non-consensual neural monitoring and data extraction. Parliament could then amend the data protection framework to classify neural data as a special, highly sensitive category deserving enhanced safeguards. Criminal procedure law should clearly lay down when — if ever — neural evidence can be used, ensuring that it’s strictly voluntary and subject to judicial oversight.
On the regulatory side, India could adopt a sandbox model similar to the one used for fintech. This would allow startups to innovate under defined ethical guardrails rather than in a legal void. In short, we don’t need to stifle innovation; we need to civilise it through law.
The Stakes Are High
At its core, neurotechnology forces us to ask a deeply human question in legal language: where does the self end and surveillance begin? Once neural data is collected and commercialised, there is no easy way to reclaim it. India has often been reactive rather than proactive in technology regulation. With neurotechnology, that approach would be dangerously shortsighted. The window to shape the rules is open now — before this technology becomes embedded in everyday life, not after.
Conclusion
Neurotechnology will transform how we live, learn, and heal. It may even reshape how evidence is gathered or how human intention is understood in courtrooms. But if the law remains silent, the boundary between innovation and intrusion will blur in ways that are difficult to reverse. India has the constitutional tools, the legal imagination, and the technological capacity to act. The question is whether we will do so in time, before our minds are treated as just another data source.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.