Right Against Algorithmic Psychological Profiling

Introduction

The right against algorithmic psychological profiling refers to the legal protection of individuals against the unauthorized collection, analysis, prediction, and exploitation of their psychological characteristics through automated technologies.

Algorithmic psychological profiling involves the use of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, biometric systems, and behavioural analytics to infer an individual's emotions, personality, mental state, preferences, vulnerabilities, or decision-making patterns.

Such profiling may rely on browsing history, facial expressions, voice patterns, online interactions, purchasing behaviour, and other personal information. It is increasingly used in targeted advertising, recruitment, insurance, financial services, education, and digital surveillance.

Although psychological profiling may improve personalized services, it can also create serious risks, including manipulation, discrimination, privacy violations, and interference with individual autonomy.

The legal question is whether individuals possess a right to resist psychological profiling and demand transparency, consent, correction, or deletion of inferred psychological information.

In India, this issue can be examined through Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and judicial decisions recognizing privacy, dignity, and informational autonomy.

2. Case Laws

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

The Supreme Court of India recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment emphasized informational privacy, autonomy, and protection against intrusive surveillance.

Application: Individuals should have protection against unauthorized psychological profiling, particularly when algorithms infer sensitive emotional or mental characteristics. The State and private entities must respect applicable privacy safeguards.

Indian Kanoon

B. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991) 1 SCC 57

The Supreme Court recognized that an individual's right to privacy and dignity cannot be denied merely because of their social status or personal circumstances.

Application: Psychological profiling should not be used to deny individuals dignity or equal treatment based on inferred personality traits or emotional characteristics.

C. CJEU, CK v. Dun & Bradstreet Austria GmbH, Case C-203/22 (2025)

The Court of Justice of the European Union held that individuals subjected to automated decision-making have a right to meaningful information about the logic involved in profiling. The explanation must be understandable and sufficiently detailed to allow the individual to challenge the decision.

EUR-Lex+1

Application: A person subjected to algorithmic psychological profiling may require meaningful explanations of how personal information was used, where applicable data-protection law provides such rights.

3. Legal Framework in India

Article 14: Protects against arbitrary and discriminatory profiling by government authorities.

Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of expression. Psychological profiling that suppresses opinions or manipulates individual choices may raise constitutional concerns.

Article 21: Protects privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Regulates the processing of digital personal data and provides protections concerning consent, lawful processing, and data-subject rights. However, it does not establish a general, standalone right against all automated psychological profiling.

4. Major Legal Issues

Informed consent: Individuals should understand when their psychological characteristics are being inferred.

Discrimination: Profiling should not result in unfair exclusion from employment, education, insurance, or public services.

Manipulation: Algorithms should not exploit emotional vulnerabilities to influence decisions unfairly.

Transparency: Individuals should receive meaningful information about significant profiling-based decisions.

Accountability: Organizations should maintain appropriate safeguards, documentation, and mechanisms for challenging unlawful profiling.

Conclusion

The right against algorithmic psychological profiling is an emerging legal protection connected with privacy, dignity, equality, and autonomy. The Puttaswamy judgment provides an important constitutional foundation in India, while the European Court of Justice's decision in CK v. Dun & Bradstreet demonstrates how transparency rights can operate in automated profiling.

Nevertheless, Indian law does not currently provide an unrestricted right to refuse every form of psychological profiling. Stronger legal safeguards should focus on informed consent, transparency, prevention of discrimination, and meaningful remedies against harmful automated decisions.