Skip to main contentScroll Top

Neural Networks and Neuro-Law: Exploring the Frontiers of Cognitive Liberty in India

Neural Networks and Neuro-Law: Exploring the Frontiers of Cognitive Liberty in India

Author's Details -

Damaraju Pradeep Kumar (Associate Professor, Department of Law, K K C College of Law, Puttur, Tirupati, India)

Received 18 May 2026; Accepted 18 June 2026; Published 22 June 2026

[Cite this Paper: Damaraju Pradeep Kumar, 'Neural Networks and Neuro-Law: Exploring the Frontiers of Cognitive Liberty in India' (2026) 6(4) Jus Corpus Law Journal 95-125 <https://doi.org/10.66918/juscorpus.v6i4.2026.16>

Category: Long Article

Pagination: 95-125

In the confluence of neural networks and neuro-law, India confronts profound challenges to cognitive liberty, where braincomputer interfaces enable unprecedented access to mental processes, demanding robust legal safeguards against unauthorised neural data exploitation. This exploration underscores the imperative for integrating ethical governance into frameworks governing mental privacy, as technological proliferation risks eroding individual autonomy in thought formation and decisionmaking. Advancements in neural decoding and augmentation technologies amplify vulnerabilities, as evidenced by national jurisprudence emphasising informational self-determination. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as encompassing mental integrity, extending Article 21 protections to personal data realms. Similarly, Selvi v State of Karnataka, invalidated involuntary neuro-scientific techniques like narco-analysis, deeming them violations of self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, further broadened due process, linking procedural fairness to substantive rights in cognitive domains. Internationally, precedents illuminate pathways: Guido Girardi Lavin v Emotiv Inc., mandated erasure of brain data, affirming mental privacy as a fundamental right. Riggins v Nevada, restricted forced psychotropic interventions, preserving cognitive autonomy. United States v Semrau, scrutinised neuroimaging admissibility, highlighting evidentiary thresholds. Vinter and Others v United Kingdom, reinforced psychological integrity against degrading treatments. Through doctrinal analysis and comparative review, revelations emerge of legislative lacunae in India, where existing data protection inadequately addresses neural specifics. Consequently, reforms must prioritise bespoke neuro-rights, foster equitable innovation while fortifying democratic ethos against manipulative AI incursions
Paper Type Journal Info Creative Commons Copyright

Long Article

Jus Corpus Law Journal

Vol 6 Issue 4

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© Jus Corpus Law Journal 2026

All rights reserved.