Introduction

The Right to Remain Unenhanced is an emerging legal principle that protects an individual’s freedom to decline interventions intended to improve physical, cognitive, genetic, or neurological abilities beyond ordinary therapeutic needs. Such interventions may include cognitive-enhancing drugs, genetic modification, neural implants, or technologies designed to increase memory, strength, intelligence, or performance.

This principle is closely connected with bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informed consent, privacy, and human dignity. It is not expressly recognised as a separate fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Its constitutional foundation may be derived from Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, and Article 14, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination.

The principle is important because enhancement technologies may create pressure to undergo procedures to remain competitive in employment, education, sports, or society. The law should protect an individual’s choice to remain unenhanced without unjustified penalties, while respecting the freedom of others to accept lawful interventions.

Important Case Laws

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

The Supreme Court recognised that a competent adult has the right to refuse medical treatment under Article 21. It affirmed the importance of bodily integrity, autonomy, and advance medical directives in specified end-of-life circumstances.

Although the case concerned refusal of life-sustaining treatment rather than enhancement, its reasoning supports the principle that a person should not ordinarily be compelled to undergo an intervention merely because another considers it beneficial.

National Digital Library of India+1

2. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2022) 3 SCC 1

The Supreme Court held that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 and that an individual cannot be forced to receive a vaccine. It recognised the right to refuse medical treatment, while also permitting proportionate public-health regulation.

The judgment supports the principle that bodily autonomy includes the ability to decline medical intervention. By analogy, a person should not ordinarily be forced to undergo non-therapeutic enhancement.

Sci API

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

The Supreme Court held that involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests violate Article 21 and, in criminal investigations, Article 20(3). The decision protects individuals against coercive interference with mental processes.

Although the case did not concern enhancement, it reinforces the constitutional principle that interventions affecting mental autonomy cannot be imposed merely for another party’s convenience.

Sci API

Scope and Legal Principles

The Right to Remain Unenhanced may support:

Bodily autonomy: Freedom to decline non-essential enhancement procedures.

Informed consent: Clear information about risks, benefits, and alternatives before intervention.

Freedom from coercion: Protection against compulsory enhancement in workplaces, educational institutions, or other settings without lawful justification.

Equality: Protection from arbitrary discrimination for refusing enhancement.

Regulatory safeguards: Safety and ethical review of high-risk enhancement technologies.

These are emerging principles, not a separately codified Indian legal doctrine. The right does not automatically invalidate every safety rule or professional standard involving enhancement.

Conclusion

The Right to Remain Unenhanced seeks to preserve an individual’s freedom to decline interventions intended to improve biological or cognitive abilities. Indian constitutional law provides a foundation through Article 21 and decisions such as Common Cause, Jacob Puliyel, and Selvi, although no Supreme Court judgment has expressly established a standalone enhancement-specific right.

The principle should be understood as protecting individual choice rather than favouring natural biology over technology. A rights-respecting framework must protect both the freedom to accept lawful enhancement and the freedom to refuse it, while preventing coercion and unjustified discrimination.