Case Laws

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

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right, including informational privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy. The judgment provides a constitutional basis for protecting information about a person’s cognitive processes and mental characteristics. However, it did not establish a separate legal right specifically named “quantum cognition.”

nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in

2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests violated constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21. The decision is important because it directly addresses compelled scientific techniques intended to obtain information about mental processes. It supports safeguards against coercive cognitive testing, although it does not concern quantum cognition models.

Indian Kanoon+1

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court held that a procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. This principle is relevant where cognitive assessments or technology-assisted predictions influence consequential decisions, such as access to public services or legal treatment.

4. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

The Supreme Court recognised the protection against compelled self-incrimination during police questioning. The judgment is relevant where authorities seek to obtain cognitive or behavioural information through coercive methods. Its application to new technologies would depend on the facts and the constitutional protections engaged.

Conclusion

Quantum Cognition Doctrine is an emerging analytical concept, not an established Indian legal doctrine. Quantum cognition uses mathematical ideas from quantum theory to model uncertainty and context-dependent decision-making; it does not establish that the human brain necessarily operates as a quantum computer.

jbusemey.pages.iu.edu+1

Existing Indian constitutional principles—particularly privacy, personal liberty, mental autonomy, and protection against compelled self-incrimination—provide a foundation for evaluating technologies that infer or assess cognition. The cited cases support lawful, proportionate, and scientifically responsible use. A future framework should require reliable validation, informed consent where appropriate, protection of cognitive data, human review, and remedies against arbitrary or discriminatory decisions.