Neurotechnology and the Law: India’s Emerging Legal Frontier

Abstract
As neurotechnology advances globally—from brain-computer interfaces to cognitive enhancement tools—India faces an urgent need to develop a legal framework that safeguards constitutional rights while fostering innovation. This article explores the intersection of neurotech and Indian law, highlighting critical gaps in cognitive privacy, criminal evidence, medical regulation, education, and research ethics. Drawing from global models like Chile’s Neuro rights Law and the EU’s AI Act, it proposes a rights-based roadmap for India, including a Neuro rights Charter, regulatory sandboxes, amendments to existing laws, judicial guidelines, and public education. The paper argues that neurotechnology is not just a scientific frontier but a legal revolution requiring proactive, ethical, and inclusive governance.

Introduction
As India embraces digital transformation, a new frontier is quietly emerging— neurotechnology. From brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to cognitive enhancement tools, neurotech is no longer confined to science fiction. It’s entering classrooms, courtrooms, and clinics. But while the technology evolves rapidly, India’s legal framework remains largely silent. This blog explores the urgent need for legal scholarship and regulation around
neurotechnology in India, proposing a roadmap for ethical, constitutional, and rights-based governance.

What Is Neurotechnology?
Neurotechnology refers to tools that interact directly with the human nervous system—
especially the brain—to monitor, stimulate, or enhance cognitive functions. Examples include:

• Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for communication and control
• Neurofeedback devices for mental health and therapy
• Cognitive enhancement wearables used in education and productivity
• AI-driven neuroimaging for lie detection or behavioural profiling

Globally, companies like Neural ink and Kernel are pushing boundaries, while countries like Chile have passed laws recognizing “neuro rights.” India, however, has yet to initiate a legal conversation.

Why India Needs a Neurolegal Framework

1. Cognitive Privacy and Consent

Neurotech can access thoughts, emotions, and mental states. Without clear legal safeguards, these risks violating Article 21 of the Constitution—especially the right to privacy as upheld in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. If neuro data is collected without informed consent, it could lead to unprecedented surveillance and manipulation.

2. Criminal Justice and Evidence

Imagine neuroimaging being used to detect deception or intent in criminal trials. Without admissibility standards or ethical boundaries, this could lead to misuse, wrongful convictions, or coerced confessions. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not currently account for neuro- evidence, raising concerns about reliability and voluntariness.3

3. Medical Regulation and Mental Health

Neurotech is increasingly used in therapy and diagnostics. But who regulates its safety, efficacy, and ethical deployment? The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, doesn’t yet account for such technologies.4 There’s a risk of unregulated devices being marketed as cures, especially in rural or underserved areas.

4. Education and Cognitive Enhancement

Startups are marketing neurotech for memory enhancement and focus training. Should schools allow it? What about fairness in competitive exams? These questions demand policy attention. The Right to Education and equality under Article 14 could be compromised if neuro- enhancement becomes a privilege of the elite.5

5. Research Ethics and Human Trials

India’s biomedical research ecosystem is growing, but neurotech trials often blur the line between therapy and experimentation. The ICMR guidelines and CDSCO regulations must evolve to address neuro-specific risks 6 —especially in vulnerable populations like children or patients with cognitive disorders.

Global Models to Learn From
India can draw inspiration from emerging international frameworks:

• Chile’s Neuro rights Law (2021): Recognizes mental privacy, identity, and free will as
  protected rights.7
• OECD’s Recommendation on Responsible Neurotechnology (2023): Offers ethical principles
  for innovation and governance.
• EU’s AI Act (2024): Classifies neurotech as high-risk AI, requiring strict oversight.8

These models emphasize human dignity, transparency, and accountability—values deeply embedded in India’s constitutional ethos.

Proposed Legal Pathways for India

1. Neurorights Charter

India should recognize cognitive liberty, mental privacy, and protection against algorithmic bias as fundamental rights. This could be done through judicial interpretation or legislative action.

2. Regulatory Sandbox for Neurotech

Allow controlled experimentation under ethical oversight, similar to fintech models. This would enable innovation while protecting users from harm.

3. Amendments to IT Act and MHCA

Introduce neurotech-specific clauses for data protection, consent, and therapeutic use. The IT Act could define “neuro data” as sensitive personal data, requiring explicit consent and purpose limitation.9

4. Judicial Guidelines for Admissibility

Frame admissibility standards for neuro-evidence in criminal trials. Courts must assess reliability, voluntariness, and potential for prejudice—especially in cases involving vulnerable accused persons.

5. Public Awareness and Education

Legal reform must be accompanied by public education. Citizens should understand their neuro rights, the risks of neurotech, and how to seek redress. Law schools and research journals can play a key role here.

Conclusion
Neurotechnology is not just a scientific revolution—it’s a legal one waiting to happen. India must act proactively to ensure that innovation does not outpace justice. Legal scholars, policymakers, and technologists must collaborate to build a neuro legal framework that protects rights, fosters innovation, and anticipates ethical dilemmas.

References

1. Ley 21.383, Oct. 14, 2021, DIARIO OFICIAL D.O..
2. . Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
3. Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, § 45, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
4. Mental Healthcare Act, No. 10 of 2017, Acts of Parliament, 2017 (India).
5. INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21A
6. Indian Council of Medical Research, National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants (2017).
7. Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. [OECD], Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, OECD/LEGAL/0470 (2023), https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0470
8. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), COM (2021) 206 final (Apr. 21, 2021).
9. Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 43A, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).