Important Case Laws

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, including informational privacy and personal autonomy. Genomic data may reveal inherited conditions, health risks and biological relationships. The judgment supports legal safeguards against unlawful collection, processing and disclosure of genetic information.

Indian Kanoon

2. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) 2 SCC 1

The Court held that medical consent must be voluntary and based on adequate information. This principle is relevant to genomic testing and research: participants should understand the purpose of testing, foreseeable risks, data sharing and possible future uses of their biological samples.

3. Aruna Rodrigues v. Union of India (2012)

The Supreme Court considered biosafety concerns surrounding genetically modified organisms and the need for proper scientific examination before environmental release. The case provides a relevant basis for regulatory oversight of gene-editing research and potential ecological risks, although it did not address quantum computing specifically.

Indian Kanoon

4. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1

The Court explained the principles of professional negligence, including duty of care and breach of the required professional standard. These principles may apply where a genomic laboratory, clinician or technology provider negligently conducts testing, interprets results, or relies on an inadequately validated system.

Conclusion

Quantum Genome Governance Accountability seeks to ensure that genomic innovation is accompanied by clear responsibility and effective safeguards. Although it is not an established standalone legal doctrine, Indian constitutional privacy law, informed-consent principles, biosafety regulation and professional-negligence jurisprudence provide a foundation for its development. Effective governance should require validated scientific methods, secure data handling, transparent oversight, defined institutional duties and meaningful remedies for harm.