Neural Surveillance and Indian Evidence Law: Brainwave Data be Admissible as testamony?

Abstract

Neurotechnology has crossed the line between science and law. So, the courtroom has become the stage for a new debate about the properties of knowledge in which the human brain is both a witness and a source of evidence at the same time. Neural Surveillance and Indian Evidence Law: Can Brainwave Data be Admissible as Testimony? investigates the extensive legal and moral issues that the use of neural data, particularly brainwaves, as acceptable evidence under India’s changing evidentiary laws, will have. The introduction of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which revises and substitutes the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, has provoked the debate concerning “relevance,” “authenticity,” and “testimonial compulsion” to take place urgently, at least in the light of the availability of neurotechnologies such as EEG, fMRI, and Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling. The current work critically examines the position of brainwave data as testimony under the interpretive framework of BSA, 2023, a study that goes beyond the technicality of admissibility to probe into the constitutional morality of brain observation. It is based on the rights enshrined in Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution and raises the issue of whether the extraction of cognitive signals, mostly done without conscious will, violates the person’s right against self-incrimination and the developing doctrine of mental privacy.Using a multidisciplinary strategy that combines neuroscience, evidentiary law, and human rights theory, the study reviews the reliability of the knowledge gained, the legitimacy of the methods used, and the worth of the evidence obtained from the brain. It argues that even though the BSA, 2023 wants to unify the standards of admissibility of evidence with the advancements in technology, the application to brainwave data still requires subtle judicial interpretation and strong procedural guarantees. The paper, in the end, proposes a new evidentiary model based on neuro-rights that supports cognitive liberty and human dignity, thus ensuring that the quest for truth does not infringe on the freedom of thought.