| _version_ | 1866901773367640064 |
|---|---|
| author | K. Kavidharani |
| author_facet | K. Kavidharani |
| contents | As neuro-technology funding surpasses $4 billion in 2025, the line between the human brain and external software has essentially disappeared. High-speed Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are no longer just experimental medical tools; they are evolving into high-bandwidth consumer channels. This paper argues that India's current legal framework, particularly the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, is poorly equipped to address the "non-conscious" nature of neural data. Unlike a leaked password, neural signatures are unchangeable and permanent; once collected, they cannot be "reset," leading to a constant risk to privacy. The extent of this risk is urgent. Research indicates that about 96.67% of companies handling neural data can share it with third parties, often without clear notice. By linking the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh with the important Puttaswamy judgment, this study finds a constitutional basis for Neuro Rights under Article 21. It suggests that mental integrity is not merely a part of privacy, but the highest expression of human dignity and self-determination. The analysis connects the Selvi case—which prevents the state from using narcoanalysis to extract thoughts—to modern consumer BCIs. If the state cannot invade the mind, then private companies should not be allowed to "harvest" the same information through covert algorithm training. In conclusion, this paper advocates for a "Privacy by Design" (PbD) requirement. It recommends establishing a specialized regulatory agency and a new category of "Neuro-Sensitive Data" to restore the protections lost during the DPDPA's passage. As neuro-scientist Rafael Yuste cautions, without a legal shield for our deepest thoughts, freedom itself becomes a myth. The Indian judiciary must take action now, before commercial practices turn our mental sovereignty into a public asset. |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18987767 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | NEURAL DATA PRIVACY AS "MENTAL PRIVACY" UNDER ARTICLE 21 K. Kavidharani As neuro-technology funding surpasses $4 billion in 2025, the line between the human brain and external software has essentially disappeared. High-speed Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are no longer just experimental medical tools; they are evolving into high-bandwidth consumer channels. This paper argues that India's current legal framework, particularly the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, is poorly equipped to address the "non-conscious" nature of neural data. Unlike a leaked password, neural signatures are unchangeable and permanent; once collected, they cannot be "reset," leading to a constant risk to privacy. The extent of this risk is urgent. Research indicates that about 96.67% of companies handling neural data can share it with third parties, often without clear notice. By linking the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh with the important Puttaswamy judgment, this study finds a constitutional basis for Neuro Rights under Article 21. It suggests that mental integrity is not merely a part of privacy, but the highest expression of human dignity and self-determination. The analysis connects the Selvi case—which prevents the state from using narcoanalysis to extract thoughts—to modern consumer BCIs. If the state cannot invade the mind, then private companies should not be allowed to "harvest" the same information through covert algorithm training. In conclusion, this paper advocates for a "Privacy by Design" (PbD) requirement. It recommends establishing a specialized regulatory agency and a new category of "Neuro-Sensitive Data" to restore the protections lost during the DPDPA's passage. As neuro-scientist Rafael Yuste cautions, without a legal shield for our deepest thoughts, freedom itself becomes a myth. The Indian judiciary must take action now, before commercial practices turn our mental sovereignty into a public asset. |
| title | NEURAL DATA PRIVACY AS "MENTAL PRIVACY" UNDER ARTICLE 21 |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18987767 |