Introduction

Public neural-rights accountability governance refers to the legal and institutional framework for protecting individuals from misuse of neurotechnology and neural data. Neurotechnology includes devices and systems that record, interpret, stimulate, or modify brain activity. Examples include brain-computer interfaces, EEG headsets, neural implants, and technologies used in neurological treatment or cognitive research.

Neural data may reveal information about a person’s mental state, cognitive activity, preferences, or health. Their collection and use can therefore raise concerns regarding privacy, bodily integrity, mental autonomy, consent, discrimination, and surveillance.

The expression “neural-rights accountability governance” is an emerging concept, not a single universally codified legal doctrine. Its purpose is to ensure that governments, researchers, healthcare providers, and technology companies remain accountable for the development and use of neurotechnology.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

In India, neural rights can be examined through existing constitutional protections:

Article 21: protects life, personal liberty, dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity.

Article 14: prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory State action.

Article 19: protects freedoms that may be affected by surveillance or coercive uses of neurotechnology.

Article 20(3): protects an accused person from being compelled to be a witness against themselves, relevant to the use of brain-based evidence.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, may also be relevant where neural data qualify as digital personal data. However, India does not yet have a comprehensive, standalone neural-rights statute that specifically regulates every category of neurodata and neurotechnology.

Effective governance should require informed consent, purpose limitation, data security, independent ethical review, transparent regulatory decisions, and remedies for misuse. Public authorities should also ensure that neurotechnology is not used to coerce individuals or interfere arbitrarily with their mental autonomy.

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. The judgment protects personal autonomy and the ability to make decisions concerning one’s body and private life.

Although the case did not directly concern neurotechnology, its principles are highly relevant to neural rights. Neural data may expose intimate information about a person’s mental life, making privacy and autonomy central to their protection. Any State interference must satisfy legality, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.

2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical activation profile tests violate constitutional protections against compelled testimony and personal liberty. The Court emphasised mental privacy, individual autonomy, and the right against self-incrimination.

This is a particularly important Indian case for neural-rights governance. It establishes that brain-related investigative techniques cannot be used coercively in a manner that violates fundamental rights.

PMC

3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar) (2019) 1 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional implications of collecting and using personal data through a large-scale identity system. It emphasised proportionality, safeguards, and limits on data collection.

The case provides an analogous framework for neural-data governance: collection should be necessary, appropriately limited, and protected against misuse. Its principles are relevant where public institutions or private companies collect neural information at scale.

4. Girardi v. Emotiv Inc., Chilean Supreme Court, Rol No. 105.065-2023, judgment of 9 August 2023

This landmark international case concerned a consumer neurotechnology device that recorded brain activity and transmitted neural data to a company’s online platform. The user challenged the retention and use of his neural information.

The Chilean Supreme Court upheld the challenge, ordered deletion of the stored neural data, and directed relevant authorities to ensure that the device’s commercialisation, use, and data handling complied with national law. The Court considered privacy and physical and psychological integrity, demonstrating how existing constitutional rights can be applied to neurotechnology.

CORTE SUPREMA DE CHILE+1

Accountability Principles

Neural-rights governance should include:

Informed consent: users must understand what neural data are collected and how they will be used.

Purpose limitation: neural data should not be repurposed without a lawful basis and appropriate consent.

Data security: organisations must prevent unauthorised access, disclosure, and commercial exploitation.

Independent oversight: research and high-risk technologies should undergo appropriate ethical and regulatory review.

Effective remedies: individuals should be able to access, correct, or seek deletion of their data where legally applicable, and challenge unlawful practices.

Conclusion

Public neural-rights accountability governance seeks to ensure that neurotechnology serves human welfare without undermining mental privacy, autonomy, dignity, or bodily integrity. Indian constitutional principles, particularly those developed in Puttaswamy and Selvi, provide a strong foundation for regulating neural technologies. The Chilean Girardi v. Emotiv judgment further illustrates the direct application of constitutional rights to neural data.

Although neural rights are still developing as a distinct legal field, accountability can be strengthened through informed consent, proportionality, privacy safeguards, independent oversight, and judicial review.