COGNITIVE LIBERTY AND NEUROTECHNOLOGY: THE NEED FOR A NEW FRONTIER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

In today’s world, your freedom to think and feel is under threat. With growing surveillance and powerful new technologies, even your thoughts could be influenced or monitored. This brings us to an important idea: cognitive liberty Cognitive liberty means the freedom to control your own mind to choose what you think, feel, and believe. It’s about mental independence. You should be able to decide how your brain works, whether through meditation, learning, or even safe use of certain substances. This idea began long ago with philosophers who valued free will and personal choice. But now, with tools like brain scans, AI, and digital tracking, it’s more urgent than ever.

Cognitive liberty is about protecting your inner world your thoughts, memories, and choices from outside control. In a time when technology can reach into the mind, we must stand up for the right to think freely and privately. The emergence of neurotechnology represents a paradigmatic transformation in the comprehension of autonomy, privacy, and freedom of thought. While brain-computer interfaces, neural data extraction, neuro-marketing, and cognitive enhancement technologies become more realistic, the inviolability of the human mind untill now thought to be sacrosanct is confronted with unprecedented legal and ethical dilemmas. This article delves into the nascent right of cognitive liberty, looking to protect a person’s liberty to think for oneself, preserve mental privacy, and ensure neuro-integrity in a world where one’s thoughts can be accessed, manipulated, or controlled with technology.

Against the background of the changing Indian jurisprudence on Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty, the essay looks at the emerging dimension to individual autonomy. Premising landmark judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the purview of Article 21 has been widened to cover dignity, autonomy, and informational privacy. But the Constitution does not address the neural and cognitive aspects of privacy. This essay asks if current understandings of Article 21 are adequate to include the right to cognitive liberty, or if novel doctrinal and legislative models are called for.

Through comparative examination specifically of Chile’s trailblazing constitutional amendment on neuro-rights and a critical evaluation of India’s existing legal void, the paper demands that cognitive liberty be recognized as a fundamental right. It contends that unless proactive reform is undertaken, India risks lagging behind in safeguarding what arguably constitutes the most private and non-renewable resource of all: THE MIND.i

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive liberty, the basic right to dominate one’s own mental processes, thoughts, and consciousness, is more and more in danger in the digital era, particularly with the advent of influential AI technologies that can influence and pre-condition our cognition subtly. Initially framed by neuroethicists as the right to think freely and independently, unrestrained and uninterfered with, by coercion or else, cognitive liberty now needs to be conceived of as a right to access and utilize mind-altering technologies if one so desires, as well as a right against having one’s mind coercively intruded into or manipulated. The problem is that AI- created content, personalized recommendation algorithms, and ubiquitous digital contexts constantly bias our perceptions and interpretations, unwittingly influencing beliefs, emotions, and choices that undermine genuine mental autonomy. This poses the pressing question: can there be genuine cognitive liberty in such an environment, and if so, how can it be sustained?

In order to preserve cognitive freedom under these pressures, people and cultures have to employ a multi-faceted strategy. First, critical thinking and media literacy must be developed people must be able to identify cognitive biases, appreciate how AI and algorithms play upon their mindset, and actively critique what they are consuming. Becoming aware of priming effects when past experiences or subtle references influence readings saves people from being influenced by unconscious manipulation. Second, preserving mental privacy is key. This involves campaigning for legal protections that specifically include mental data privacy and immunity from unauthorized brain monitoring or manipulation, applying historical privacy and freedom of thought protections to the neurotechnological and digital age. Third, persons should be entitled to access and use cognitive enhancement technologies in a safe manner voluntarily, respecting autonomy of one’s mental states without criminalization or coercion.

Fourth, transparency and accountability in AI systems need to be insisted upon—tools that create or curate content should face robust fact-checking, bias disclosure, and mechanisms for detecting and countering misinformation and manipulation. Lastly, continued societal watchfulness and ethical regulation are necessary in order to weigh innovation against protection, such as ongoing research, risk assessment, and the development of ethical standards that value cognitive liberty as a foundation of human dignity and democracy.ii

Imagine a near future, closer than we think: You’re at your computer, and instead of using a mouse, you move your cursor with your mind. You check your brain data and see your stress rising before a deadline, followed by a mental reminder to take a break. You notice unusual brain activity while sleeping and mentally send a message to your doctor, asking if it’s something to worry about. Your thoughts wander to a coworker you’re attracted to, but you quickly snap back, worried your boss might see your emotions through your brain data. Later, your boss congratulates you for your good “brain performance,” and you earn a bonus. But the next day, things change. The government has demanded access to your and your coworkers’ brain data. One of them is suspected of fraud, and now everyone’s mental records are under review for possible links based on similar brain wave patterns. This future may sound like science fiction, but rapid advances in neuroscience and AI are bringing us closer to it. New technology is making it possible to read and track brain activity in real time. Whether we are stressed, focused, or remembering something, our brains produce electrical signals that devices like EEG (electroencephalogram) and EMG (electromyography) can detect. These used to require surgery, but now they can be worn on your head like a simple headset.

At first, these consumer brain devices were considered inaccurate and more like toys. But they’ve improved—and now they’re being used in real ways. For example, they can alert drowsy drivers, help people with epilepsy or paralysis, and even detect early signs of brain disorders like Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia. This tech can be helpful it allows people to monitor their brain health and take control of their well-being. But there’s also a dark side. As with personal data, brain data can be sold, shared, or used to control us. In the future, we may need to trade access to our brain activity for things like job security, insurance discounts, or social media access.

In China, this is already happening. Some train drivers and factory workers are required to wear brain-monitoring devices to ensure they stay alert and productive. If their brain shows signs of tiredness or low motivation, they can be sent home. In the U.S., major projects like the BRAIN Initiative and DARPA’s programs are working on advanced brain-computer systems, including devices that can read from and send signals to multiple points in the brain at once. Big tech companies like Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and Snap are investing in brain-tracking tools. These can detect emotions, attention, and even memories. Some beauty companies, like L’Oréal, are using brain sensors to recommend perfumes based on your emotions.

In China, companies like Entertech are collecting millions of brain data records from people doing different activities, and they’ve partnered with AI companies to analyze this data. Your brain activity, like your online data, is becoming a commodity. Scholar Shoshana Zuboff once called this “surveillance capitalism”—when companies profit from your personal data. Now, that risk is expanding to your brain. We’re at a crossroads: this technology could either improve lives or lead us into a future where even our private thoughts aren’t private.iii

Cognitive Liberty and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

With technology rapidly evolving, particularly in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, a new type of personal freedom is threatened cognitive liberty, or the ability to control your own mind, mental processes, and brain data.

In India, this issue falls under the general cover of Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards:

No individual shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court has over the years interpreted “personal liberty” under Article 21 very comprehensively. It not only implies physical freedom but also the right to privacy, dignity, mental peace, and autonomy over personal decisions.

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. This judgment now forms a solid ground for claiming protection of brain information and mental agency in the neurotechnology era.

Picture this future where:

Employers or governments monitor your brain waves to judge your work. AI technologies forecast your emotions or choices based on your brain activity.

Your thoughts and subjective experiences are data—tapped, saved, and perhaps exploited. These possibilities raise immediate constitutional concerns:

Can your mental information be stolen without your permission?

Can you be convicted, hired, or disciplined based on what your brain says about you?

Is your right to think freely, safeguarded by Article 21, really secure in a digital, brain-scan world?

The right to cognitive liberty has to be read as part of your right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It encompasses:

The right to think freely without being monitored. The right to privacy of the mind.

The right to access and take control of your own brain data.

The right to protection from mental manipulation or coercion by AI systems.

Just as India has come to enact privacy legislation and data protection customs (such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023), there is now an urgent need to legally acknowledge and protect brain rights. These may form part of a widened definition of Article 21 or may lead to new legislations and regulations.

Globally, institutions such as UNESCO and OECD are debating neuro-rights. Being the largest democracy in the world, India also needs to step up and ensure that technological advancement is not at the expense of core freedoms.

Article 21 already safeguards your dignity, autonomy, and mental integrity. But in an era of brain-reading technologies, cognitive liberty needs to be formally recognized as part of that

safeguard. Only then can we guarantee that our most intimate space—the mind—really is free in a digital world.

Cognitive Liberty and the Need for Neuro-Rights Legislation in India

The recent viral images of a monkey playing a video game using only a brain chip—enabled through Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMIs)—highlight the fast-evolving intersection of neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Human trials for such technology are expected soon, and the possibility of enhancing or influencing human mental capacities through external devices is no longer science fiction. With such progress, serious concerns emerge regarding the protection of the human brain from manipulation, surveillance, or control.

Neuroscience has already demonstrated the ability to influence behavioural decisions in animals by altering neurochemical processes. As similar experiments begin with human subjects, there is a pressing need to define ethical and legal safeguards. Neuro-rights—a concept gaining global recognition—refer to the protections and freedoms related to an individual’s mental and cerebral domain, including the right to mental privacy, identity, agency, and cognitive liberty.

The potential misuse of neurotechnology raises serious ethical and legal challenges. Without early and effective regulation, technologies like BMIs may become so culturally and commercially embedded that controlling their harmful impact later may be nearly impossible. The rise of social media serves as a cautionary tale. Algorithms that mine user data and shape online behaviour became dominant before effective legal frameworks could be introduced.

The result was a blurred line between public and private spheres, eroding privacy and autonomy. In the Indian legal context, the foundations for neuro-rights can be found in the right to

privacy as affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The judgment emphasized informational privacy and informational self-determination, both of which are relevant when discussing mental integrity. Any interference with thought processes or cerebral activity through technology poses a threat to individual autonomy. The sanctity of the mind was recognized as integral to personality and human dignity, and thus squarely protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Self-determination, as derived from Article 21, is based on protecting autonomous individuals who possess free will. Psychological integrity is considered a part of the right to privacy by

international jurisprudence, further strengthening the claim for mental and cognitive freedom as a constitutional right. Informational self-determination includes the freedom to decide what information about one’s inner experiences is shared, and under what conditions.

At present, BMI technology cannot fully decode intentions from brain activity. However, brain data processed through artificial intelligence—especially machine learning algorithms—raises unpredictability and accountability concerns. These algorithms can not only interpret past data but also influence future decision-making by prompting actions based on earlier behaviour. The possibility of a device nudging users toward certain decisions compromises the autonomous nature of thought, which is central to both privacy and dignity.

Additionally, there are concerns about cognitive enhancement technologies, which aim to artificially boost brain performance. Such enhancement, while technologically advanced, must be met with clear ethical boundaries. Cognitive liberty—the freedom to think independently and control one’s mental functions—requires explicit legal recognition, especially as Indian courts have consistently upheld freedom of thought as a part of constitutional protection.

One particularly troubling area is the potential use of neurotechnology in criminal investigations, where it may blur the lines between testimonial and physical evidence. For example, a brain scan obtained with consent might later be used to extract information that qualifies as testimonial evidence, violating the protections against self-incrimination and undermining mental privacy. Therefore, neural data—which is intimately tied to personal identity and mental processes—deserves to be treated as a distinct category of sensitive personal data.

The Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019, offers a temporary route to address this issue.

Section 15 of the Bill allows the government to classify new categories of data as sensitive personal data after consultation with regulators. Neural data can potentially be included through this mechanism. However, Section 42 reveals a key limitation: the Data Protection Authority is not required to include experts in neuroscience, making it difficult to ensure accurate and informed oversight.

Hence, the most effective and long-term solution lies in drafting specific legislation focused on neurotechnology and neural data protection. Such a law must:

• Define neural data and its legal
• Set clear boundaries for access, use, and
• Regulate the development and deployment of
• Prohibit cognitive manipulation and protect mental
• Ensure access is permitted only for clearly defined ethical and medical
• Establish independent oversight with expert representation from neuroscience, ethics, and law.

Given the predicted growth of the neurotech industry—especially in the BMI sector—a precautionary and proactive approach is necessary. Carefully crafted legislation will not only protect fundamental rights but also guide innovation in a direction that aligns with constitutional values. India stands at a pivotal moment to shape the future of human rights in the digital and neural age.

Chile’s First Neuro-Rights Law: A Global Milestone

Chile became the first country in the world to pass legislation specifically protecting neuro- rights—a pioneering legal response to emerging threats posed by neurotechnology. In

September 2021, Chile amended its Constitution (Article 19) to safeguard mental integrity and protect citizens from potential abuses of brain-interfacing technologies.

Key Provisions of Chile’s Neuro-Rights Law:

1. Protection of Mental Privacy:

The law establishes that brain data, thoughts, and mental processes are part of a person’s private domain and cannot be accessed or manipulated without free, informed, and explicit consent.

2. Right to Personal Identity:

Any technology that could alter a person’s perception, memory, or consciousness must not infringe upon their personal identity or selfhood.

3. Free Will and Autonomy:

The legislation guards against external manipulation of decision-making processes, thus ensuring the individual’s freedom of thought and will.

4. Prohibition of Discrimination:

The law mandates that neurotechnological enhancements must not lead to inequality, reinforcing equal treatment regardless of cognitive abilities.

5. Definition of Neural Data:

It classifies data obtained from the human brain as sensitive personal data, deserving the highest level of legal protection.

Global Significance:

• Chile’s law sets a precedent in international human rights law, introducing “neurorights” as a fifth-generation right (beyond civil, political, social, digital rights).

• It was influenced by the NeuroRights Initiative (led by neuroscientist Rafael Yuste), which proposed five core neuro-rights:
  1. Mental Privacy
  2. Personal Identity
  3. Free Will
  4. Equal Access to Cognitive Enhancement
  5. Protection from Algorithmic Bias

Relevance to India:

In the Indian context, such rights can be mapped under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty. With advancements in brain-computer interfaces and AI, India too may need a specialized legal framework to safeguard cognitive liberty and mental integrity, inspired by Chile’s proactive model.iv

Cognitive Liberty: Origin, Meaning& Relevance 

The term “Cognitive Liberty” was first popularized by Wrye Sententia and Richard Glen Boire, co-founders of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE) in the early 2000s. It emerged from the intersection of neuroscience, law, ethics, and human rights, driven by growing concerns over the impact of technologies that could alter, monitor, or control mental processes. The concept draws inspiration from broader human rights traditions—especially freedom of thought, privacy, and bodily autonomy—but adapts them to new threats posed by neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence.

Meaning of Cognitive Liberty

Cognitive Liberty refers to the right of individuals to control their own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It implies protection from:

• Unauthorized access to brain data
• Manipulation of thoughts or decisions
• Technological interference with mental autonomy

Boire defined it as:

“The right of each individual to think independently, to use emerging neurotechnologies to enhance or alter cognition, and to be free from coercive use of such technologies by the state or others.”

Thus, cognitive liberty includes both negative liberties (freedom from interference) and positive liberties (freedom to access cognitive enhancement).

Relevance in the 21st Century

With the development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neural implants, neuro-marketing, and AI-based prediction systems, cognitive liberty has become a critical human rights concern.

Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno

These two scholars advanced the framework for “Neuro-Rights”, proposing their recognition in international law. In their 2017 paper titled “Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology”, they argued that traditional human rights frameworks are insufficient to address the unique threats to mental integrity posed by emerging neurotech.

They identified five key rights under the umbrella of cognitive liberty:

1. Right to Mental Privacy – Protection from unauthorized access to brain
2. Right to Personal Identity – Safeguarding the continuity and authenticity of
3. Right to Mental Integrity – Protection against harmful manipulation or hacking of the
4. Right to Cognitive Liberty – Freedom to use or reject
5. Right to Equal Access to Cognitive Enhancement – Avoiding inequality in access to brain enhancement tools.v

Connection to Preceding Human Rights

Right to Privacy

Mental privacy is a derivative of informational privacy, such that brain information (e.g., EEG activity or neural patterns) are treated as sensitive personal information. The Puttaswamy ruling (2017) of the Indian Supreme Court made privacy a constitutional right under Article 21, encompassing privacy of thought and internal experience. Cognitive liberty strengthens this right by underscoring the requirement to safeguard the mental contents against observation or unauthorized tapping.

Freedom of Thought and Conscience

Enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, this right guarantees no one to be compelled in the sphere of belief and thinking. Cognitive liberty enriches the picture by considering technological coercion, e.g., targeted algorithmic control or neural tampering, that quietly influences choices and beliefs, hence limiting freedom of thought.

Bodily Autonomy and Integrity

The autonomy of decision over one’s body encompasses the brain as well as its processes. Cognitive liberty guarantees that neural interventions (e.g., implants, neurostimulation, enhancements) only occur with informed consent. It is consistent with the right to bodily autonomy by treating the mind as a safe, sovereign territory, one’s part of physical and moral integrity.

Human Dignity

Cognitive liberty has an intimate connection with human dignity, a principle of founding force in international law and in Indian constitutional tradition. Interference with mental processes without consent erodes personhood and dignity. Ienca and Andorno believe that cognitive liberty lies at the heart of protecting human dignity in the digital age.

Toward Legal Recognition

Chile constitutionally enshrined neuro-rights in 2021 as the first country, specifically safeguarding mental integrity and neural information. International discussion, particularly in Europe and Latin America, increasingly lends support to the proposition that cognitive liberty should be a new generation human right. In India, though cognitive liberty is not yet legislated, it may be interpreted as falling within Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), particularly when read along with Articles 19 (freedom of speech and thought) and Article 25 (freedom of conscience).

Why It’s Urgent Now

1. Rapid Growth of Brain-Tech Trials: Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and neuro-enhancing wearables are moving from laboratories into consumer and clinical use. Notably, Elon Musk’s Neuralink and Meta’s brain-to-text efforts signal the arrival of non-invasive mind-reading devices.
2. Emerging Surveillance and Data-Protection Gaps: S. senators recently called on the FTC to investigate how neurotech firms handle brain data—highlighting concerns over opaque data-sharing practices that fall outside medical privacy laws like HIPAA.
3. Threats to Mental Autonomy: Experts such as Duke’s Prof. Nita Farahany stress that the brain is “the final frontier of privacy”—fears include unauthorized access, thought manipulation, and cognitive nudging.
4. Insufficient Legal Protections: Current data protections like the PDP Bill (India) or HIPAA (U.S.) don’t explicitly cover neural data or the complex algorithms interpreting it. Without specific safeguards, fundamental rights like privacy, autonomy, and freedom of thought are vulnerable.
5. Potential Misuse in Law and Employment: Brain data could be used in courts or workplaces—e.g., to prove intent or assess workplace performance—eroding protections like self-incrimination clauses and fair employment practices.

Comparative Analysis: Chile’s Neuro-Rights Law and the Indian Legal Landscape

• Overview: Chile’s Constitutional Amendment (2021)

In 2021, Chile became the first country in the world to constitutionally enshrine neuro-rights, amending Article 19 of its Constitution to protect mental integrity in response to the rapid

advancement of neurotechnology. The amendment ensures that “the development of neuroscience and neurotechnology is always used for the benefit of human beings” and that their application respects

individual mental integrity and human dignity.

Four Key Rights Recognized in Chile Neuro

1. Mental Privacy: Protection from unauthorized collection, access, or use of brain data.
2. Personal Identity: Safeguards to prevent external technologies from altering or manipulating personality, beliefs, or self-perception.
3. Free Will / Agency: Right to make autonomous decisions, free from technological coercion or algorithmic nudging.
4. Equal Access: Guarantees equitable access to cognitive-enhancing technologies, preventing a neuro-divide between social classes.

These rights were proposed by neuroethicists like Dr. Rafael Yuste and legal scholar Marcello Ienca, aiming to build an international framework for cognitive liberty.

Aspect	India	Chile
Legal Status	No specific mention of cognitive or neuro-rights in the Constitution or legislation.	Explicit Constitutioal Protection (Article 19 amended)
Existing Coverage	Article 21 ensures Privacy (K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) and Bodily Autonomy, but not explicitly mental intergrity	Consitutional gurantees mental privacy and neuro-rights
Tech Regulation	India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act,2023, doesn’t cover neural data or brain–computer interfaces (BCIs).	Chile’s amendment is tech-neutral but aimed at neurotech
Policy Response	Reactive and fragmented; law often follows harm or public concern	Proactive, precautionary, and future-oriented

What India Can Learn: Proactive vs. Reactive Reform

• Proactive Constitutional and Legislative Framework: India should consider a forward-looking legal approach that acknowledges the growing presence of neurotechnology and AI-driven cognitive influence, before misuse becomes widespread.
• Recognition of Cognitive Liberty: Integrating mental privacy, freedom of thought, and autonomy of mind within Article 21 or via a standalone Digital Mental Integrity Act would align with global best practices.
• Public and Ethical Debate: Chile’s reforms were driven by collaboration between scientists, ethicists, and lawmakers. India must similarly foster cross-disciplinary dialogue and participatory lawmaking.
• Equity in Access: Anticipating future socio-economic divides due to unequal access to brain-enhancing technologies is crucial. Chile’s model of neuro-justice offers a useful blueprint.

Neurotechnology in India: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the Era of Brain Data

As neurotechnology improves—through machines that scan brainwaves, foretell behaviour, or aid mental well-being—a new frontier of legal and ethical issues arises. In India, the lack of a specific regulatory environment for BCIs, neuro-surveillance, and AI-facilitated psychological tools poses a huge threat. This article examines how misuses of brain data, psychological profiling, crime prediction, and the struggle between the state and the corporation to control challenge constitutional rights such as privacy, autonomy, and liberty.

Brain-Data Abuse: Spying, Manipulation, and Advertising Neuro-Surveillance in the Workplace

Certain international companies are testing wearable neurotech devices such as EEG headbands to track workers’ stress levels and alertness. If these practices become established in India without legal protection, they can intrude on mental privacy, freedom of thought, and the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself.

• Concern: Indian labor law and the IT Rules, 2021, currently do not regulate cognitive data monitoring.
• Risk: Managers can utilize cognitive tendencies to evaluate productivity, control behavior, or repress unionization.

Neuromarketing & Consumer Devices

Neurotech businesses around the world—and possibly in India—are trying to collect brain signals when ads or content are viewed in order to forecast buying behavior. This means bulk capture of subconscious data without intentional consent.

• Ethical violation: Absence of informed consent and non-consensual behavioral targeting.
• Legal gap: Indian consumer protection laws do not consider brain data as sensitive personal data yet.

Psychological Profiling and AI Mental Health Tools Algorithmic Profiling

Social media conduct, wearable data, and biometric inputs are increasingly being utilized by AI systems to ascertain psychological states—such as depression, anxiety, or PTSD. In India, the same are being utilized in mental health apps without a norm for consent or clinical validation.

• Problem: No medical validation and potential harm through misdiagnosis.
• Legal oversight lacking: No law explicitly governs AI tools applied in treatment or diagnosis.

Crime Prediction and Lie Detection via Neurotech Neuroprediction Tools

Indian criminal justice is testing devices that promise to predict criminal behavior based on neuro-behavioral information. This includes face analysis, detecting stress, or even brainwave monitoring.

• Problem: High likelihood of false positives; erodes presumption of innocence.
• Ethical risk: Can be used to target marginalized communities in the guise of “risk assessment.”

BEOS and Brain-Based Lie Detection

India has witnessed the application of Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) in high- profile trials such as the Aarushi Talwar case. Although some courts accepted it, the Supreme Court cautioned against its acceptance in the absence of scientific scrutiny.

• Legal issue: BEOS is in contravention of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution (protection against self-incrimination).
• Scientific issue: No common evidence that brain-based lie detection is accurate.

Corporate vs. State Control of Neural Autonomy New Power Struggles

Governments can pursue surveillance of thought processes to ensure law and order, while companies are promoting commercialization of brain signals through wearable technology. In the absence of a regulatory regime, both parties can breach mental privacy.

• Major threat: Surveillance of minds in public areas, workplaces, or schools at scale.
• Regulatory gap: India lacks an equivalent framework to Chile’s 2021 amendment to the constitution on neuro-rights.

Policy Recommendations for India 

1. Identify brain information as “sensitive personal data” under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
2. Prohibit forced neuro-monitoring at schools, workplaces, or government
3. Control BEOS and lie detection by conforming to international standards such as the Daubert Test for scientific testimony.
4. Require independent neuroethical boards for all companies or laboratories dealing with cognitive information.
5. Embrace a ‘Neuro-Rights Charter’—enacting mental privacy, cognitive freedom, and defense against neural discrimination.

The human brain is the last frontier of autonomy—and its conquest through neurotechnology necessitates immediate legal protection. India has to go beyond generic data protection and enshrine cognitive freedom as an integral right. A strong legal framework bringing together neuroscience, human rights, and AI ethics is the hour of the need.vi

The Way Forward: Suggestions for India 

Since neurotechnological innovation will increasingly converge with constitutional rights, India needs to have a rights-based and forward-looking policy ensuring brain-related technologies’ ethical, lawful, and democratic application. The suggestions below cover requisite institutional and legal changes:

1. Clear Enunciation of Mental Privacy in Article 21

The privacy right, as established in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017), is already inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution. Even today’s interpretations are mostly directed towards physical and informational privacy. A judicial enlargement or constitutional amendment to formally include mental privacy—the right to have one’s thoughts, mental habits, and neural information free from observation, control, or extraction without permission—is needed. Such an action would be reflective of Chile’s 2021 constitutional reform that deemed mental integrity inviolable.

2. Special Data Protection Regime for Neural and Cognitive Data

Current legislation like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is not intended to govern neural data, which is essentially different in sensitivity and ramifications. Brain data like emotional reactions, intent prediction, and subconscious responses need a distinct legal regime that consists of: Cognitive data-specific consent mechanisms. Prohibitions on commercial exploitation without informed opt-in. Increased penalties for unauthorized access or neuro-surveillance. This framework should treat brain data as a special category, similar to biometric or genetic data.

3. Creation of an Independent Neurotechnology Oversight Authority

To oversee ethical, legal, and scientific facets of neurotech, a dedicated Neurotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (NRAI) should be formed. Its mandates should involve: Licensing and monitoring of cognitive devices. Scrutiny of neuro-enhancement research and trials. Enforcement of brain-computer interface and AI-profiling tool ethical standards. Such a regulator would function independently of both governmental and corporate influences to avoid state or commercial encroachment upon cognitive liberties.

4. Encouraging Public Education and Neuroscience Ethics

Public education, transparency, and the encouragement of ethical neuroscience would be the foundation of a rights-based neuro-policy. Suggestions include: Incorporation of neuro-rights education into the school and university curricula. Requiring informed consent and supervision for all neuro-research on human subjects. Promoting interdisciplinary work that includes ethicists, lawyers, neuroscientists, and social scientists. Initial templates may be provided by ethical guidelines of international organizations like UNESCO, the OECD, and the Neurorights Foundation.

India is at a crossroads in its technological evolution. An active, not reactive, policy of cognitive liberty will enable it to emerge as a world leader in neuro-rights legislation, ensuring balance between innovation and constitutional ideals. Implementation of these suggestions in Indian legal and policy frameworks is necessary to uphold the sanctity of mental autonomy in the era of neurotechnology.vii

Conclusion

In an age when neurotechnology and artificial intelligence are evolving with unprecedented velocity, the necessity to protect mental sovereignty cannot be overstated. The power to exercise free thought, unintruded upon or manipulated, is the very foundation of human dignity and autonomy. As evolving technologies continue to permeate cognitive activity, there lies a real risk that the one remaining redoubt of personal freedom—the human mind— will no longer be inviolate. Cognitive freedom needs to be understood as a universal, 21st-century human right, critical to the safeguarding of privacy, autonomy, and identity in the age of digital technology. It is more than traditional notions of freedom, calling for positive protections against state intrusions and corporate incursions into mental affairs.

India, being a constitutional democracy based on the values of liberty and dignity of people, needs to address these newly emerging threats proactively through legal and policy interventions. The Constitution would need to adapt, especially by amending Article 21, to establish mental privacy and cognitive autonomy as manifest, enforceable rights. Failing timely intervention, the prospect of a not-too-distant future in which the mind is no longer private and human agency is compromised algorithmically takes on a perilously real shape.

The mind’s defense has to start now—before freedom and manipulation are forever blurred into one.

References

[i] Cognitive Liberty: Exploring the Right to Mental Self-Determination ( January 14, 2025) https://neurolaunch.com/cognitive-liberty/ accessed on 2^nd July 2025

Cognitive Liberty, What is it and How Do You Maintain it? (June 26, 2025) https://newsi8.com/cognitive-liberty-what-is-it-and-how-do-you-maintain-it/ accessed on 2^nd July 2025

[ii] Cognitive Liberty’ Is the Human Right We Need to Talk About By Nita Farahany June 26, 2023 7:00 AM EDT

https://time.com/6289229/cognitive-liberty-human-right/ accessed on 3^rd July

[iii] The Time is Now for a ‘Neuro-Rights’ Law in India (7 January 2022)

By Ishika Garg https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/the-time-is-now-for-a-neuro-rights-law-in-india/ accessed on 7^th July 2025

[iv] Fighting for our cognitive liberty By Liz Mineo Harvard Staff Writer(April 26, 2023) https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/04/we-should-be-fighting-for- our-cognitive-liberty-says-ethics-expert/ accessed on 9^th July 2025

[v] Cognitive Liberty: Exploring the Right to Mental Self-Determination By Neuro Launch editorial team(January 14, 2025)

https://neurolaunch.com/cognitive-liberty/#google_vignette accessed on 10^th July 2025

[vi] Cognitive Liberty In The Age Of Neurotechnology: A Legal And Ethical Exploration By Pranav Bhondve, ILS Law College, Pune( Jun 5)

https://www.ijllr.com/post/cognitive-liberty-in-the-age-of-neurotechnology-a-legal-and-ethical-exploration accessed on 15 July

[vii] BEOS in Indian Law: Wikipedia, ‘Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling’ (Wikipedia, 2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Electrical_Oscillation_Signature_Profiling accessed 19 July 2025