1. Introduction

The Compelled Neuro-Rehabilitation Accountability Doctrine is a proposed legal and governance framework concerned with the compulsory use of neurological rehabilitation, cognitive therapies, neurotechnology, brain-stimulation procedures and other interventions intended to restore, modify or improve an individual's neurological functioning.

The doctrine addresses a fundamental legal question:

Can the State, a hospital, a court, an employer or another institution compel an individual to undergo neuro-rehabilitation, and who is legally accountable for the consequences of that intervention?

Neuro-rehabilitation may involve:

Neurological physiotherapy and occupational therapy.

Cognitive rehabilitation and memory training.

Speech and language rehabilitation.

Neuropsychological interventions.

Brain-computer interface-assisted rehabilitation.

Non-invasive brain stimulation, including transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation in appropriate clinical circumstances.

Rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury, stroke or neurological disorders.

Ordinarily, rehabilitation is based on informed consent and an individual's clinical needs. However, disputes arise when rehabilitation is ordered or imposed without meaningful consent, particularly in psychiatric institutions, prisons, forensic settings, disability-care institutions and state-funded healthcare programmes.

The doctrine therefore connects constitutional liberty, bodily integrity, medical consent, disability rights, professional negligence, institutional accountability and technological governance.

Important legal qualification: This is an analytical and proposed doctrine, not a universally recognised independent cause of action or established legal doctrine. Its principles are derived from existing constitutional, medical, human-rights and negligence jurisprudence.

2. Meaning and Scope of the Doctrine

The doctrine has five central dimensions.

A. Compulsion and legal authority

An institution cannot assume that neurological rehabilitation becomes compulsory merely because it considers the intervention beneficial.

There must be a legally valid basis for overriding an individual's refusal, where such an override is legally permissible.

B. Informed consent and neurological autonomy

An individual must ordinarily receive understandable information about:

The nature of the rehabilitation.

Its expected benefits.

Possible physical and psychological risks.

Alternative treatments.

Duration and intensity.

Data collection and neurological monitoring.

The consequences of refusing treatment.

C. Rehabilitation accountability

Healthcare professionals and institutions must be accountable for improper treatment decisions, inadequate supervision, negligence, coercion and violations of patient rights.

D. Protection against neurological manipulation

Rehabilitation must not become a mechanism for controlling personality, suppressing independent thought, enforcing ideological conformity or changing behaviour for institutional convenience.

E. Remedies and independent oversight

Individuals must have access to complaints mechanisms, independent medical assessments, judicial review and appropriate compensation where unlawful intervention causes harm.

3. Constitutional and Legal Framework in India

The doctrine can be developed through several constitutional protections.

3.1 Article 21 – Right to Life, Dignity and Personal Autonomy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty. Its interpretation extends beyond mere physical survival.

It protects:

Bodily integrity.

Personal autonomy.

Privacy and dignity.

Freedom from arbitrary medical intervention.

The right to make important decisions concerning one's body.

Protection against degrading or abusive treatment.

Compulsory neuro-rehabilitation can therefore raise constitutional concerns when it involves invasive procedures, forced medication, neurological stimulation or cognitive interventions without adequate legal authority.

A State institution cannot justify every compulsory intervention merely by claiming that it is intended to improve a person's health.

3.2 Article 14 – Equality and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 prohibits arbitrary State action.

A rehabilitation programme may violate Article 14 if it:

Targets persons with disabilities without individual assessment.

Applies discriminatory standards to neurological patients.

Imposes treatment based on stereotypes about mental incapacity.

Uses compulsory rehabilitation as punishment.

Provides no meaningful review or appeal.

The State must demonstrate that its decisions are lawful, rational and non-discriminatory.

3.3 Article 19 – Freedom of Expression and Thought

Article 19 protects constitutional freedoms, including speech and expression.

Neuro-rehabilitation must not be used to compel ideological conformity, suppress lawful expression or change an individual's political, religious or social beliefs.

A distinction must be maintained between clinically justified rehabilitation and behavioural conditioning intended to serve institutional interests.

3.4 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is particularly important.

Its relevant provisions include:

An especially important principle appears in Section 4: a person is presumed capable of making treatment decisions if they can understand relevant information, appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences and communicate their decision. Capacity must not be denied merely because a person has a mental illness.

IndiaCode

Consequently, a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis cannot automatically justify compulsory rehabilitation.

3.5 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides an additional framework for protecting individuals with disabilities.

Its principles include:

Equality and non-discrimination.

Respect for individual dignity.

Protection from abuse and exploitation.

Accessibility of healthcare and rehabilitation.

Recognition of legal capacity and participation in decisions.

The objective of rehabilitation should be independence, inclusion and participation rather than institutional obedience.

3.6 International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is especially significant.

Article 26 specifically envisages rehabilitation programmes based on individual needs, multidisciplinary assessment and voluntary participation.

United Nations Enable+2

These provisions offer an important international foundation for developing accountability standards for compulsory neuro-rehabilitation.

4. Essential Elements of the Accountability Doctrine

4.1 Principle of Informed Consent

Informed consent is the foundation of legitimate neurological rehabilitation.

Before initiating treatment, the healthcare provider should explain the proposed intervention and obtain valid consent from the person concerned, subject to legally recognised exceptions.

For example, a hospital proposes a compulsory neurostimulation programme for a patient recovering from a traumatic brain injury.

The hospital must establish:

The clinical purpose of the intervention.

The medical evidence supporting its use.

The risks and potential adverse effects.

The availability of less restrictive alternatives.

The patient's capacity and preferences.

The legal authority for any proposed compulsory intervention.

A signature on a general admission form should not be treated as unlimited consent to neurological procedures.

4.2 Principle of Medical Necessity

Compulsory intervention, where legally permissible, must be justified by genuine medical necessity.

The institution should demonstrate that:

There is a specific medical problem.

The proposed intervention is clinically appropriate.

Less restrictive alternatives have been considered.

The intervention is proportionate to the risk.

The intervention is not being used for punishment or administrative convenience.

Medical necessity must not become a blanket justification for overriding personal autonomy.

4.3 Principle of Proportionality

The intensity of compulsory rehabilitation must be proportionate to the legitimate medical objective.

For instance, requiring a patient to participate in ordinary physical exercises is legally and ethically different from forcibly administering medication or subjecting the patient to invasive brain stimulation.

The greater the interference with bodily and mental integrity, the stronger the justification and procedural safeguards required.

4.4 Principle of Independent Medical Review

An institution should not have unlimited authority to decide both that compulsory rehabilitation is necessary and that its own decision is lawful.

Independent assessment should examine:

Diagnosis and clinical necessity.

The patient's decision-making capacity.

Whether the intervention is proportionate.

Potential physical and psychological harm.

Availability of alternative treatment.

Whether continued compulsory treatment remains justified.

4.5 Principle of Continuous Accountability

Consent and clinical justification should not be treated as one-time events.

Rehabilitation should be periodically reviewed because a patient's condition, preferences, capacity and treatment requirements may change.

Continued intervention without reassessment may become unlawful or professionally negligent.

5. Important Case Laws and Judicial Principles

The following judgments provide the strongest legal foundations for this proposed doctrine.

5.1 Yash Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2026 INSC 96)

Particularly relevant – Supreme Court of India, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 30 January 2026

This is an especially important recent judgment for neurological and disability-related treatment governance.

The case concerned the promotion and administration of stem-cell interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) outside approved clinical trials and established regulatory safeguards.

The Supreme Court examined:

The relationship between patient autonomy and informed consent.

The scientific validity of proposed medical interventions.

The responsibilities of healthcare professionals.

The regulatory framework governing stem-cell treatments.

The protection of persons with disabilities and their families from misleading therapeutic claims.

The Court emphasised that merely choosing a treatment does not establish valid informed consent. Adequate scientific information about the treatment's nature, efficacy and risks must be available.

It held that stem-cell therapies for ASD could not be offered as ordinary clinical services outside an approved and monitored research or clinical-trial setting.

Relevance to the doctrine:

This judgment establishes an important accountability principle: medical institutions cannot escape responsibility by arguing that a patient or guardian voluntarily agreed to an intervention when the treatment lacks the scientific foundation necessary for meaningful informed consent.

Applied to neuro-rehabilitation, it supports stronger regulation of experimental neurological interventions, including unvalidated brain-based treatments.

Indian Kanoon+1

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

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 16 January 2008

This is one of India's leading judgments on medical consent.

The dispute concerned a medical procedure performed beyond the scope of the consent originally given by the patient.

The Supreme Court explained that valid consent requires:

Capacity to consent.

Voluntary agreement.

Adequate information about the proposed procedure.

Disclosure of the purpose, benefits and substantial risks.

Information about available alternatives and the consequences of refusing treatment.

The Court recognised that consent to one procedure does not automatically authorise another procedure.

Application to neuro-rehabilitation:

Suppose a patient consents to physiotherapy following a brain injury. The hospital subsequently introduces an invasive neurological stimulation procedure without obtaining the necessary additional consent.

The original consent cannot automatically authorise the new intervention.

The hospital may face liability for unauthorised treatment, depending on the facts and applicable legal requirements.

Indian Kanoon+1

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

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 24 August 2017

This landmark constitutional judgment recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and other freedoms guaranteed by Part III.

The judgment connected privacy with:

Personal autonomy.

Human dignity.

Individual choice.

Bodily integrity.

Control over personal information.

Application to neuro-rehabilitation:

Neuro-rehabilitation increasingly involves neurological measurements, brain imaging, cognitive assessments and potentially brain-computer interface data.

Such information may reveal highly personal details about an individual's neurological functioning.

A rehabilitation institution should therefore establish safeguards concerning:

Collection of neurological data.

Access to patient records.

Disclosure to third parties.

Retention and deletion.

Secondary use for research.

Security against unauthorised access.

The constitutional privacy principle is particularly relevant where neurological data is collected under institutional pressure.

Indian Kanoon

5.4 Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 28 August 2009

This judgment concerned the reproductive autonomy of a woman with an intellectual disability who was living in a government institution.

The Supreme Court rejected the assumption that disability automatically eliminates an individual's ability to make important personal decisions.

The Court recognised reproductive choice as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21.

Application to the doctrine:

A person with a neurological or intellectual disability should not automatically be treated as incapable of deciding whether to undergo rehabilitation.

An institution must assess the individual's actual decision-making capacity and respect their preferences.

The judgment supports protection against paternalistic institutional decisions that disregard the person's own wishes.

Indian Kanoon

5.5 Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 9 March 2018

This judgment addressed the right to die with dignity and the legal recognition of advance medical directives.

It recognised the right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment, subject to the legal framework governing end-of-life decisions.

The judgment is significant because it recognises that patient autonomy includes the ability to refuse medical intervention.

Application to neuro-rehabilitation:

A competent adult recovering from a neurological injury may refuse a particular rehabilitation procedure.

The refusal cannot automatically be overridden merely because healthcare professionals believe the treatment would be beneficial.

However, the right to refuse treatment does not create an unlimited right to demand any scientifically unsupported treatment.

This distinction was also reinforced in the 2026 Yash Charitable Trust judgment.

VoxJuris+1

5.6 Herczegfalvy v. Austria (1992), Application No. 10533/83

Court: European Court of Human Rights
Date: 24 September 1992

The case involved compulsory medical interventions, force-feeding, administration of medication and physical restraint in a psychiatric institution.

The European Court considered whether compulsory medical treatment could violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It acknowledged that medical authorities may, in certain circumstances, use force to protect the health of patients who are entirely incapable of deciding for themselves.

However, medical intervention remains subject to human-rights protections.

Application to the doctrine:

Compulsory neuro-rehabilitation must not be treated as automatically lawful because it is described as therapeutic.

Its necessity, manner of administration, duration and effects must be examined.

The judgment supports heightened scrutiny where a patient is institutionally confined and unable to protect themselves against medical abuse.

BAILII

5.7 Glass v. United Kingdom (2004), Application No. 61827/00

Court: European Court of Human Rights
Date: 9 March 2004

The case concerned medical treatment administered to a child with serious disabilities despite disagreement with the child's mother, who had parental responsibility.

The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention because the treatment interfered with the child's right to respect for private life without adequate legal justification.

Application to the doctrine:

A hospital cannot simply disregard legitimate consent and decision-making procedures because it believes its preferred treatment is better.

Where serious disagreement exists, proper legal procedures and independent judicial safeguards may be necessary.

This principle is relevant to compulsory neurological interventions involving children and individuals who require supported decision-making.

BAILII+1

5.8 Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002), Application No. 2346/02

Court: European Court of Human Rights
Date: 29 April 2002

The judgment examined personal autonomy and bodily integrity under Article 8 of the European Convention.

The Court recognised that imposing medical treatment on a mentally competent adult without consent interferes with physical integrity.

Application to the doctrine:

The therapeutic intention of a medical intervention does not, by itself, eliminate the need to respect the patient's autonomy.

A competent adult's refusal must be treated as a serious legal decision.

BAILII

Case-law comparison

6. Institutional Accountability for Compelled Neuro-Rehabilitation

The proposed doctrine requires accountability at several institutional levels.

6.1 Hospital Accountability

Hospitals must establish appropriate procedures for authorising, supervising and reviewing neurological rehabilitation.

Their responsibilities include:

Verifying informed consent.

Maintaining accurate treatment records.

Conducting individual clinical assessments.

Monitoring adverse effects.

Ensuring that rehabilitation is medically justified.

Investigating complaints of coercion or abuse.

A hospital may face legal consequences where institutional negligence or unlawful treatment is established.

6.2 Medical Professional Accountability

Neurologists, psychiatrists, rehabilitation specialists, psychologists and other healthcare professionals must exercise appropriate professional judgment.

Professional misconduct may arise where a practitioner:

Performs an intervention without valid consent.

Misrepresents experimental treatment as established therapy.

Ignores serious contraindications.

Uses excessive physical restraint.

Falsifies neurological assessments.

Fails to monitor adverse consequences.

Continues an intervention despite withdrawal of consent when no lawful exception applies.

6.3 Government Accountability

Government authorities have responsibilities when compulsory rehabilitation is carried out in public hospitals, prisons, psychiatric institutions or government-funded facilities.

Their duties include:

Establishing lawful treatment standards.

Regulating healthcare institutions.

Providing independent inspection.

Investigating complaints.

Protecting vulnerable individuals.

Ensuring access to judicial remedies.

Where State action violates fundamental rights, constitutional remedies may be available.

6.4 Technology Provider Accountability

Modern neuro-rehabilitation may use artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, neurological sensors and automated stimulation systems.

Manufacturers and technology providers should be accountable for relevant product defects, unsafe designs, misleading claims and failures to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.

For example, if an automated neurostimulation device delivers inappropriate stimulation because of a software defect, responsibility may arise under applicable product liability, negligence and regulatory laws.

7. Governance Model for Compelled Neuro-Rehabilitation

A sound governance framework should separate clinical decision-making, legal authorisation and independent supervision.

Proposed governance architecture

1. Clinical assessment

Neurological diagnosis, rehabilitation needs and individual risk assessment

2. Capacity and consent review

Patient preferences, supported decision-making and informed consent

3. Legal authorisation, if compulsion is proposed

Applicable statutory authority, necessity, proportionality and procedural safeguards

4. Controlled rehabilitation

Qualified professionals, documented treatment and continuous safety monitoring

5. Independent review and accountability

Periodic reassessment, complaints, investigation, remedies and termination when no longer justified

The model should incorporate the following governance institutions:

The independent bodies must not replace the patient's legal rights or become instruments for automatically approving compulsory treatment.

8. Legal Liability and Remedies

Compelled neuro-rehabilitation may give rise to different forms of legal liability depending on the nature of the intervention and the resulting harm.

8.1 Constitutional Liability

Where a government institution violates Article 21 through unlawful or arbitrary neurological intervention, the affected person may approach the constitutional courts.

Potential remedies include:

Writ of habeas corpus in appropriate unlawful-detention cases.

Writ of mandamus requiring public authorities to perform statutory duties.

Judicial review of compulsory treatment decisions.

Compensation in appropriate cases involving established fundamental-rights violations.

Directions for institutional reform and independent monitoring.

8.2 Medical Negligence Liability

Medical negligence may arise when healthcare professionals fail to exercise the legally required standard of care.

Examples include:

Improper administration of neurostimulation.

Failure to monitor neurological complications.

Inadequate patient assessment.

Treatment without necessary consent.

Failure to disclose material risks.

The legal consequences may include civil damages, consumer-law remedies where applicable and professional disciplinary proceedings.

8.3 Criminal Liability

Depending on the facts, unlawful physical intervention, wrongful confinement, assault or intentional harm may attract applicable criminal provisions.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other applicable laws may become relevant.

However, a poor clinical outcome does not automatically establish criminal negligence. The necessary legal ingredients must be proved.

8.4 Data Protection Liability

Neurological information can reveal sensitive personal information concerning a person's health and cognitive functioning.

Unauthorised collection, disclosure or processing may raise issues under applicable privacy and data-protection law, including the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent its provisions apply.

8.5 Research and Clinical-Trial Liability

If an institution uses experimental neuro-rehabilitation techniques, it must comply with the applicable research, clinical-trial and biomedical ethics framework.

Patients must not unknowingly become research participants merely because they are receiving rehabilitation in a hospital.

9. Special Governance Challenges

9.1 Neurotechnology and Brain-Computer Interfaces

[China Tech] Yueyang Hospital Wins Approval for Futuristic Hand Rehab System - City News Service

Guttmann Barcelona | Institut Guttmann

Lokomat Pro 6 firmy Hocoma - nauka chodu i reedukacja w Polsce

10

Brain-computer interfaces and automated neurological systems create new accountability challenges.

For example, an institution may use a brain-computer interface to assess a patient's neurological activity and support motor rehabilitation.

Important legal questions include:

Who controls the collected brain data?

Can neurological data be used for secondary research?

Who is responsible for algorithmic errors?

Can the institution compel the patient to use the device?

What happens if the technology produces psychological or physical harm?

Governance should require transparent data practices, clinical supervision, appropriate validation and clear allocation of responsibility.

9.2 Rehabilitation in Prisons

Compulsory neuro-rehabilitation in prisons requires particularly strong safeguards.

A prison authority must not use neurological treatment as a punishment or as a mechanism for enforcing obedience.

Rehabilitation should address genuine clinical needs, and imprisonment must not automatically be treated as consent to medical intervention.

9.3 Rehabilitation of Children

Children require special protections.

A parent or guardian may participate in medical decisions, but the child's welfare, developing autonomy and ability to express preferences must also be considered.

The child's disability or neurological diagnosis should not automatically justify invasive intervention.

9.4 Rehabilitation of Persons with Mental Disabilities

One of the most important governance challenges is distinguishing mental disability from legal incapacity.

The UN human-rights framework stresses that adults with disabilities retain autonomy in rehabilitation decisions and should receive support to exercise their legal capacity.

The UN Special Rapporteur's report on the right to health specifically addresses autonomy in rehabilitation interventions.

OHCHR+1

10. Proposed Principles for a Neuro-Rehabilitation Accountability Law

The following principles could form the foundation of a specialised legislative framework.

A proposed statute could establish a specialised Neuro-Rehabilitation Oversight Authority with powers to:

Register regulated neuro-rehabilitation institutions.

Establish standards for neurological interventions.

Investigate allegations of coercion and abuse.

Monitor high-risk neurotechnology.

Examine complaints of unauthorised treatment.

Coordinate with existing medical and mental-health regulators.

Recommend corrective measures and refer serious violations to competent authorities.

Such an authority would need clearly defined statutory powers and safeguards against duplicating existing regulators.

11. Illustrative Legal Scenarios

Scenario 1: Forced cognitive rehabilitation

A government hospital requires a patient with a brain injury to participate in cognitive rehabilitation despite the patient's informed refusal.

The hospital claims that participation is necessary for recovery.

Legal analysis: The patient's capacity, clinical condition, applicable statutory authority and the proportionality of the proposed intervention must be assessed. A general claim of medical benefit is insufficient to establish legal authority for compulsion.

Scenario 2: Experimental brain stimulation

A private clinic advertises an experimental brain-stimulation procedure as a guaranteed cure for neurological disability.

The patient undergoes the intervention without adequate disclosure of its experimental status.

Legal analysis: The principles in Samira Kohli and Yash Charitable Trust become relevant. The clinic may face liability for misleading claims, inadequate consent and regulatory violations, depending on the evidence.

Scenario 3: Neuro-rehabilitation in a psychiatric institution

A psychiatric institution administers neurological medication and uses physical restraints to ensure compliance with a rehabilitation programme.

Legal analysis: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, constitutional protections and the principles in Herczegfalvy become relevant. The institution must establish lawful authority, clinical necessity, proportionality and appropriate monitoring.

Scenario 4: Unauthorised use of brain data

A rehabilitation centre collects neurological data through a brain-computer interface and shares it with a technology company without the necessary legal basis.

Legal analysis: Privacy, data-protection obligations, confidentiality and institutional accountability must be examined.

12. Critical Analysis: Balancing Rehabilitation and Individual Liberty

The doctrine must address two competing considerations.

First, the State has a responsibility to protect individuals who require neurological rehabilitation. Failure to provide appropriate treatment can worsen disability, reduce independence and restrict social participation.

Second, the State must not convert the responsibility to provide rehabilitation into unlimited authority to compel it.

A person should not lose constitutional protection merely because they have a neurological condition, cognitive impairment or disability.

The proper objective of rehabilitation is to improve independence and quality of life while respecting individual dignity.

A particularly important distinction is between:

Providing rehabilitation services.

Encouraging voluntary participation.

Supporting a person who needs assistance with decision-making.

Legally compelling a person to undergo treatment.

These are four different legal situations and must not be treated as interchangeable.

13. Recommendations for Future Legal Development

India could strengthen the governance framework through the following reforms:

Specific consent standards: Establish detailed consent requirements for invasive and high-risk neurological interventions.

Independent review: Introduce periodic independent assessment for legally authorised compulsory interventions.

Patient representation: Provide access to independent advocates and supported decision-making.

Technology regulation: Establish safety standards for AI-based neurological rehabilitation and brain-computer interfaces.

Research transparency: Require accurate disclosure of experimental status and scientific uncertainty.

Institutional inspections: Strengthen inspections of psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitation centres and custodial institutions.

Accessible complaints: Provide independent mechanisms through which patients can challenge coercive interventions.

Effective remedies: Develop clear procedures for compensation, professional discipline and institutional accountability.

14. Conclusion

The Compelled Neuro-Rehabilitation Accountability Doctrine represents a proposed approach to governing the intersection of medical intervention, neurological autonomy, disability rights and constitutional liberty.

Its central proposition is that the medical objective of rehabilitation cannot automatically override an individual's fundamental rights.

The Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 21, together with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Supreme Court's judgments on informed consent and autonomy, provides a substantial foundation for this approach.

The decisions in Samira Kohli, Puttaswamy, Suchita Srivastava, Common Cause and the particularly relevant 2026 judgment in Yash Charitable Trust provide important legal principles.

The ultimate governance objective should be to ensure that neuro-rehabilitation remains scientifically responsible, legally authorised, proportionate, transparent and respectful of human dignity.

The fundamental principle is that rehabilitation must restore and support human autonomy, not become a means of institutional control over the human mind and body.

15. Important Legal References and Research Sources

Primary judicial research:

Yash Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2026 INSC 96) – Full judgment.

Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008).

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009).

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018).

Herczegfalvy v. Austria (1992).

Glass v. United Kingdom (2004).

Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002).

Academic note: The proposed doctrine should be presented in legal research as a normative synthesis of established legal principles, rather than as an already recognised standalone doctrine under Indian law. This distinction is important when developing a dissertation, research paper or proposed legislative framework.