Introduction

The Right to Neural Sovereignty Doctrine Accountability Governance is an emerging legal framework concerned with protecting a person’s control over their brain, neural activity, and brain-derived information, while ensuring that institutions using neurotechnology are legally accountable. It combines three related ideas: neural sovereignty protects individual autonomy; the doctrine establishes the principles governing neural interference; and accountability governance provides mechanisms to prevent, investigate, and remedy violations.

The concept is increasingly relevant to brain-computer interfaces, neural implants, neurostimulation, brain-data analytics, and technologies that infer mental states. Such systems may affect privacy, bodily integrity, freedom of thought, and personal decision-making.

In India, neural sovereignty is not expressly recognised as a separate fundamental right. Its constitutional foundation may be drawn from Article 21, protecting life, dignity, privacy, and personal liberty, and Article 20(3), which safeguards against compelled self-incrimination. The legal challenge is to encourage legitimate medical and scientific uses while preventing coercive or unjustified interference with the human mind.

Constitutional Accountability and Governance

The doctrine may be applied through the following principles:

Informed consent: Neural devices and interventions should be used with meaningful, informed consent, except where a lawful and constitutionally justified exception applies.

Neural-data protection: Collection, processing, disclosure, and secondary use of neural data should be limited to lawful and clearly defined purposes.

Safety and transparency: Developers and medical institutions should assess risks, validate systems, and disclose relevant limitations.

Non-discrimination: Neural inferences should not become the basis for arbitrary treatment in employment, education, healthcare, or public services.

Effective remedies: Individuals should have access to complaint mechanisms, independent review, and appropriate legal remedies when their rights are violated.

These are proposed governance duties, not an already codified standalone Indian neural-rights regime. Legal scholarship identifies Puttaswamy and Selvi as important foundations while noting the absence of explicit Indian neuro-rights jurisprudence.

NLIU Law Review+1

Important Case Laws

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

The Supreme Court considered involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests. It held that involuntary administration of these techniques violates Article 21 and, in criminal investigations, Article 20(3)’s protection against compelled self-incrimination.

The Court’s reasoning provides a direct foundation for accountability where authorities coercively interfere with mental processes.

Indian Kanoon

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

The nine-judge Bench recognised privacy as a fundamental right, protecting dignity, autonomy, and informational self-determination. It established that privacy restrictions must satisfy legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.

This judgment supports constitutional scrutiny of neural-data collection and use, particularly by public authorities.

Indian Kanoon

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

The Court held that a procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, rather than arbitrary or oppressive. By analogy, neural surveillance or compulsory neural intervention cannot be justified solely by administrative convenience; the procedure and safeguards must also withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Right to Neural Sovereignty Doctrine Accountability Governance seeks to ensure that neural technologies respect human dignity, mental autonomy, and privacy, while assigning responsibility for unlawful or harmful use. Selvi and Puttaswamy provide its strongest Indian constitutional foundations, though neural sovereignty remains an emerging doctrine rather than a separately established fundamental right.

A sound governance framework should combine lawful authority, informed consent, proportionality, independent oversight, data protection, and effective remedies. Its central principle is that technological capability does not itself create legal authority to access or manipulate a person’s neural processes.